The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 3 ( March, 2020 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Clinical Performance of Short-fiber-reinforced Resin Composite Restorations vs Resin Composite Onlay Restorations in Complex Cavities of Molars (Randomized Clinical Trial)

Rawda H ElAziz, Mai M Mohammed, Hussien AF Gomaa

Keywords : Chairside indirect restorations, Direct vs indirect resin composite restorations, Randomized clinical trial, Short-fiber-reinforced resin composite restorations

Citation Information : ElAziz RH, Mohammed MM, Gomaa HA. Clinical Performance of Short-fiber-reinforced Resin Composite Restorations vs Resin Composite Onlay Restorations in Complex Cavities of Molars (Randomized Clinical Trial). J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (3):296-303.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2785

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 23-07-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Background: Short-fiber-reinforced resin composite (SFRC) is a direct bulk fill resin composite specially indicated in large complex cavities. It is characterized by having high fracture toughness and load bearing capacity to decrease the incidence of fracture of the restoration. Materials and methods: In two parallel groups (n = 38 restorations), 76 participants having complex proximal cavities with asymptomatic vital pulp were randomly enrolled in this trial and received either SFRC (Ever X Posterior, GC, Japan) covered by Gaenial posterior (GC, Japan) or chairside indirect restorations (Grandioso inlay system; VOCO, Germany) fabricated on a silicon die. Materials were applied according to the manufacturer instructions with the corresponding adhesive system. Only 67 participants completed the trial, which was assessed using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria by two independent blinded assessors at 6 months and 1 year follow-up visits. Statistical analysis: Fisher\'s exact and Cochran\'s Q tests were used to analyze inter- and intragroup comparisons, respectively. The significance level was set at p ≤ 0.05. Results: No statistically significant difference was observed between both tested groups for all USPHS criteria at different follow-up periods except for marginal integrity favoring the SFRC at 12 months when the difference became significant (p < 0.001), and color match favoring the nanohybrid indirect resin composite restorations with significant difference in scores at all follow-up intervals (p < 0.001) was found. Cochran\'s Q test showed significant differences within the same technique during the follow-up period for some criteria. Conclusion: Direct SFRC and indirect nanohybrid resin composite complex proximal restorations showed an acceptable clinical performance along the 1 year follow-up period. Clinical relevance: Direct SFRC restorations could be a viable treatment option for complex restorative cases.


PDF Share
  1. Opdam N, Frankenberger R, Magne P, et al. From “Direct vs Indirect” toward an integrated restorative concept in the posterior dentition. Oper Dent 2016;41(S7):S27–S34. DOI: 10.2341/15-126-LIT.
  2. Pott P, Rzasa A, Stiesch M, et al. Internal and marginal fit of modern indirect class II composite inlays. J Dent Mater Tech 2014;3(3):99–105. DOI: 10.22038/JDMT.2014.2967.
  3. Garoushi S, Mangoush E, Vallittu M, et al. Short fiber reinforced composite: a new alternative for direct onlay restorations. Open Dent J 2013;7(4):181–185. DOI: 10.2174/1874210601307010181.
  4. Tsujimoto A, Barkmeier WW, Takamizawa T, et al. Mechanical properties, volumetric shrinkage and depth of cure of short fiber-reinforced resin composite. Dent Mater J 2016;35(3):418–424. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2015-280.
  5. Garoushi S, Gargoum A, Vallittu PK, et al. Short fiber-reinforced composite restorations: a review of the current literature. J Investig Clin Dent 2018;9(3):e12330. DOI: 10.1111/jicd.12330.
  6. Garoushi S, Tanner J, Vallittu P, et al. Preliminary clinical evaluation of short fiber-reinforced composite resin in posterior teeth: 12-months report. Open Dent J 2012;6(4):41–45. DOI: 10.2174/1874210601206010041.
  7. Tanner J, Tolvanen M, Garoushi S, et al. Clinical evaluation of fiber-reinforced composite restorations in posterior teeth - results of 2.5 year follow-up. Open Dent J 2018;12(4):476–485. DOI: 10.2174/1874210601812010476.
  8. Azeem RA, Sureshbabu NM. Clinical performance of direct vs indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth: a systematic review. J Conserv Dent 2018;21(1):2–9. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD213_16.
  9. Candan U, Eronat N, Onçağ O. Clinical performance of fiber-reinforced nanofilled resin composite in extensively carious posterior teeth of children: 30-month evaluation. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2013;38(1):1–6. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.38.1.q352786473372282.
  10. Needleman I, Worthington H, Moher D, et al. Improving the completeness and transparency of reports of randomized trials in oral health: the CONSORT statement. Am J Dent 2008;21(1):7–12.
  11. Ricketts D, Innes N, Schwendicke F. Selective removal of carious tissue. Monogr Oral Sci 2018;27:82–91. DOI: 10.1159/000487838.
  12. Shor A, Nicholls JI, Phillips KM, et al. Fatigue load of teeth restored with bonded direct composite and indirect ceramic inlays in MOD class II cavity preparations. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16(1):64–69.
  13. Opdam NJ, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E, et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 2014;93(10):943–949. DOI: 10.1177/0022034514544217.
  14. Torres CRG, Mailart MC, Crastechini É, et al. A randomized clinical trial of class II composite restorations using direct and semidirect techniques. Clin Oral Investig 2019;24(2):1053–1063. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-019-02999-6.
  15. Marquillier T, Doméjean S, Le Clerc J, et al. The use of FDI criteria in clinical trials on direct dental restorations: a scoping review. J Dent 2018;68:1–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.10.007.
  16. Goracci C, Cadenaro M, Fontanive L, et al. Polymerization efficiency and flexural strength of low-stress restorative composites. Dent Mater 2014;30(6):688–694. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2014.03.006.
  17. Qanungo A, Aras MA, Chitre V, et al. Immediate dentin sealing for indirect bonded restorations. J Prosthodont Res 2016;60(4):240–249. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2016.04.001.
  18. Auschill TM, Koch CA, Wolkewitz M, et al. Occurrence and causing stimuli of postoperative sensitivity in composite restorations. Oper Dent 2009;34(1):3–10. DOI: 10.2341/08-7.
  19. da Veiga AM, Cunha AC, Ferreira DM, et al. Longevity of direct and indirect resin composite restorations in permanent posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2016;54:1–12. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.08.003.
  20. Mendonça JS, Neto RG, Santiago SL, et al. Direct resin composite restorations vs indirect composite inlays: one-year results. J Contemp Dent Pract 2010;11(3):025–032.
  21. Priyalakshmi S, Ranjan M. A review on marginal deterioration of composite restoration. IOSR J Dent Med Sci 2014;13(1):6–9.
  22. Lu H, Powers JM. Color stability of resin cements after accelerated aging. Am J Dent 2004;17(5):354–358.
  23. Nedeljkovic I, Teughels W, De Munck J, et al. Is secondary caries with composites a material-based problem. Dent Mater 2015;31(11): e247–e277. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.09.001.
  24. Jokstad A. Secondary caries and microleakage. Dent Mater 2016;32(1):11–25. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.09.006.
  25. Alvanforoush N, Palamara J, Wong RH, et al. Comparison between published clinical success of direct resin composite restorations in vital posterior teeth in 1995–2005 and 2006–2016 periods. Aust Dent J 2017;62(2):132–145. DOI: 10.1111/adj.12487.
  26. American Dental Association. (2001). Council on Scientific Affairs. American Dental Association program guidelines: products for dentin and enamel adhesive materials. www.ada.org.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.