Aim: The present randomized clinical study compared the 18 months performance of self-adhering flowable composite with a conventional flowable composite in anterior Class V restorations.
Materials and methods: Totally, 20 patients, each with two moderate cervical carious lesions, participated in this singlecenter study. Forty restorations were allocated on a random basis by one examiner not involved in the restoration or the evaluation procedures, In each patient, one lesion was allocated to be restored using self-adhering flowable composite [Fusio liquid dentin (FL)] and the other to be restored using conventional flowable composite [Tetric Flow (FF)]. The allocation sequence of the restorations was concealed from the operator in sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed, and stapled envelopes. An operator restored all the preparations in accordance to the manufacturer's instructions. Finishing and polishing of the restorations were done immediately after placement. Evaluation of the restorations was done in accordance to the United States Public Health Services (USPHS), modified Ryge criteria. Statistical analysis was completed with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0 (IBM Product, Chicago, USA).
Results: One case could not be reassessed at 18 months follow-up in both groups. No significant differences were detected between the tested materials from baseline to those of 18 months using the modified USPHS criteria.
Conclusion: Self-adhering flowable composite exhibited acceptable clinical performance comparable with the conventional flowable composite in anterior Class V restorations over an 18-month period. Nevertheless, the findings of this study must be validated by a longer clinical study.
Clinical significance: Self-adhering flowable composite exhibited clinical performance comparable with the conventional flowable composite in Class V restoration.
Oberländer H, Hiller KA, Thonemann B, Schmalz G. Clinical evaluation of packable composite resins in Class-II restorations. Clin Oral Investig 2001 Jun;5(2):102-107.
Yap AU, Wang HB, Siow KS, Gan LM. Polymerization shrinkage of visible-light-cured composites. Oper Dent 2000 Mar-Apr;25(2):98-103.
Yoshikawa T, Sano H, Burrow MF, Tagami J, Pashley DH. Effects of dentin depth and cavity configuration on bond strength. J Dent Res 1999 Apr;78(4):898-905.
Ferracane JL. Developing a more complete understanding of stresses produced in dental composites during polymerization. Dent Mater 2005 Jan;21(1):36-42.
Heymann HO, Sturdevant JR, Bayne S, Wilder AD, Sluder TB, Brunson WD. Examining tooth flexure effects on cervical restorations: a two-year clinical study. J Am Dent Assoc 1991 May;122(5):41-47.
Burgess JO, Gallo JR, Ripps AH, Walker RS, Ireland EJ. Clinical evaluation of four Class V restorative materials: 3-year recall. Am J Dent 2004 Jun;17(3):147-150.
Li Q, Jepsen S, Albers HK, Eberhard J. Flowable materials as an intermediate layer could improve the marginal and internal adaptation of composite restorations in Class-V-cavities. Dent Mater 2006 Mar;22(3):250-257.
De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Van Meerbeek B. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res 2005 Feb;84(2):118-132.
Moszner N, Salz U, Zimmermann J. Chemical aspects of selfetching enamel-dentin adhesives: a systematic review. Dent Mater 2005 Oct;21(10):895-910.
Hegde MN, Hegde P, Chandra CR. Morphological evaluation of new total etching and self-etching adhesive system interfaces with dentin. J Conserv Dent 2012 Apr;15(2):151-155.
Eliades G, Vougiouklakis G, Palaghias G. Heterogeneous distribution of single-bottle adhesive monomers in the resin-dentin interdiffusion zone. Dent Mater 2001 Jul;17(4): 277-283.
Koliniotou-Koumpia E, Kouros P, Koumpia E, Helvatzoglou- Antoniades M. Shear bond strength of a “solvent-free” adhesive versus contemporary adhesive systems. Braz J Oral Sci 2014 Jan-Mar;13(1):64-69.
Sadeghi M. An in vitro microleakage study of Class V cavities restored with a new self-adhesive flowable composite resin versus different flowable materials. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2012 Jul-Aug;9(4):460-465.
Bektas OO, Eren D, Akin EG, Akin H. Evaluation of a self-adhering flowable composite in terms of micro-shear bond strength and microleakage. Acta Odontol Scand 2013 May-Jul;71(3-4):541-546.
Vichi A, Margvelashvili M, Goracci C, Papacchini F, Ferrari M. Bonding and sealing ability of a new self-adhering flowable composite resin in Class I restorations. Clin Oral Investig 2013 Jul;17(6):1497-1506.
el-Mowafy OM, Lewis DW, Benmergui C, Levinton C. Meta-analysis on long-term clinical performance of posterior composite restorations. J Dent 1994 Feb;22(1):33-43.
Ernst CP, Martin M, Stuff S, Willershausen B. Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for posterior teeth after 3 years. Clin Oral Investig 2001 Sep;5(3):148-155.
Turkun LS, Turkun M, Orate F. Two-year clinical evaluation of a packable resin-based composite. J Am Dent Assoc 2003 Sep;134(9):1205-1212.
Mahmoud SH, El-Embaby AE, AbdAllah AM. Clinical performance of ormocer, nanofilled, and nanoceramic resin composites in Class I and Class II restorations: a three-year evaluation. Oper Dent 2014 Jan-Feb;39(1):32-42.
Sabbagh J, Dagher S, El Osta N, Souhaid P. Randomized clinical trial of a self-adhering flowable composite for Class I restorations: 2-year results. Int J Dent 2017 Mar;2017(10):1-7.
Ryge, G.; Cvar, JF. Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. San Francisco (CA): US Government Printing Office Publication; 1971.
Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, Van Landuyt K, Lambrecths P, Vanherle G. Buonocore memorial lecture. adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 2003 May-Jun; 28(3):215-235.
American Dental Association, Council on Scientific Affairs. American Dental Association program guidelines: products for dentin and enamel adhesive materials. Chicago (IL): American Dental Association; 2001. [cited 2013 Jun]. Available from: www.ada.org.
Bayne SC, Thompson JY, Swift EJ Jr, Stamatiades P, Wilkerson MA. Characterization of first-generation flowable composites. J Am Dent Assoc 1998 May;129(5):567-577.
Baroudi K, Silikas N, Watts DC. Time-dependent viscoelastic creep and recovery of flowable composites. Eur J Oral Sci 2007 Dec;115(6):517-521.
Labella R, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B, Vanherle G. Polymerization shrinkage and elasticity of flowable composites and filled adhesives. Dent Mater 1999 Mar;15(2): 128-137.
El-Embaby AE. Influence of water storage timing on the bond strength of self-adhering light cured resin composite with different dentin surface treatments. Egypt Dent J 2012; 58(4):1-7.
Naga AA, Yousef M, Ramadan R, Fayez Bahgat S, Alshawwa L. Does the use of a novel self-adhesive flowable composite reduce nanoleakage? Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2015 Mar;7:55-64.
Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater 1997 Jul;13(4):258-269.
van Dijken JW, Sunnegardh-Gronberg K. Fiber reinforced packable resin composites in Class II cavities. J Dent 2006 Nov;34(10):763-769.