Bulk-filled posterior resin restorations based on stress-decreasing resin technology: a randomized, controlled 6-year evaluation

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bulk-filled posterior resin restorations based on stress-decreasing resin technology

T2 - a randomized, controlled 6-year evaluation

AU - van Dijken, Jan W.V.

AU - Pallesen, Ulla

N1 - © 2017 Eur J Oral Sci.

PY - 2017/8

Y1 - 2017/8

N2 - This randomized study evaluated a flowable resin composite bulk-fill technique in posterior restorations and compared it intraindividually with a conventional 2-mm resin composite layering technique over a 6-yr follow-up period. Thirty-eight pairs of Class II restorations and 15 pairs of Class I restorations were placed in 38 adults. In all cavities a single-step self-etch adhesive (Xeno V) was applied. In the first cavity of each pair, the flowable resin composite (SDR) was placed, in bulk increments of up to 4 mm. The occlusal part was completed with a layer of nanohybrid resin composite (Ceram X mono). In the second cavity of each pair, the hybrid resin composite was placed in 2-mm increments. The restorations were evaluated using slightly modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline and then annually for a time period of 6 yr. After 6 yr, 72 Class II restorations and 26 Class I restorations could be evaluated. Six failed Class II molar restorations, three in each group, were observed, resulting in a success rate of 93.9% for all restorations and an annual failure rate (AFR) of 1.0% for both groups. The AFR for Class II and Class I restorations in both groups was 1.4% and 0%, respectively. The main reason for failure was resin composite fracture.

AB - This randomized study evaluated a flowable resin composite bulk-fill technique in posterior restorations and compared it intraindividually with a conventional 2-mm resin composite layering technique over a 6-yr follow-up period. Thirty-eight pairs of Class II restorations and 15 pairs of Class I restorations were placed in 38 adults. In all cavities a single-step self-etch adhesive (Xeno V) was applied. In the first cavity of each pair, the flowable resin composite (SDR) was placed, in bulk increments of up to 4 mm. The occlusal part was completed with a layer of nanohybrid resin composite (Ceram X mono). In the second cavity of each pair, the hybrid resin composite was placed in 2-mm increments. The restorations were evaluated using slightly modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline and then annually for a time period of 6 yr. After 6 yr, 72 Class II restorations and 26 Class I restorations could be evaluated. Six failed Class II molar restorations, three in each group, were observed, resulting in a success rate of 93.9% for all restorations and an annual failure rate (AFR) of 1.0% for both groups. The AFR for Class II and Class I restorations in both groups was 1.4% and 0%, respectively. The main reason for failure was resin composite fracture.

KW - Journal Article

U2 - 10.1111/eos.12351

DO - 10.1111/eos.12351

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 28524243

SN - 0909-8836

VL - 125

SP - 303

EP - 309

JO - European Journal of Oral Sciences

JF - European Journal of Oral Sciences

IS - 4

ER -