Evaluation of Post-Operative Sensitivity of Bulk Fill Resin Composite Versus Nano Resin Composite: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Study

Overview

Journal Open Access Maced J Med Sci

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2019 Oct 9

PMID 31592052

Citations 6

Authors

Sarah Mahmoud Hussien Afifi

Mohamed Fouad Haridy

Mohamed Riad Farid

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Despite recent advances in restorative dentistry adhesive restorations may cause postoperative sensitivity which leads to restoration failure.

Aim: This study aimed to compare and evaluate the incremental and bulk fill resin Composite postoperative sensitivity in class II posterior restorations bonded with two adhesive systems (self-etch and etch-and-rinse).

Methods: Sixty patients were randomly selected, their age range from twenty-five to forty years old, divided into two groups according to the packing technique of resin composite material; incremental Tetric Evoceram and Tetric Evoceram bulk-fill resin composite. Thirty patients (n = 30) for incremental Tetric Evoceram resin composite restorations and according to the adhesive systems used they were equally divided (n = 15 teeth).Thirty patients (n = 30) for Tetric Evoceram bulk-fill resin composite restorations and according to the adhesive systems used (etch and rinse or self-etch), they were equally divided (n = 15 teeth). Post-operative pain assessed at 24 hours, 1 week and 1 month using the Visual Analog Scale Score (VAS). Each patient was instructed to put a mark on the VAS line at home to point out the intensity of pain at each assessment period. The problem of measuring the pain that pain tolerance of individuals may be different from the others. This may be due to different reasons, and it is not always because of a problem in the restoration.

Results: After 1 day, 1 week as well as 1 month, no statistically significant disagreement between the two resin composite types using self-etch adhesive strategy and total-etch adhesive strategy. Also, when the two adhesive systems were compared using Bulk Fill resin composite and incremental Nano resin composite no statistically significant disagreement between the two adhesive systems after 1 day, 1 week as well as 1 month.

Conclusion: The post-operative hypersensitivity is related to many factors as the procedure of cavity preparation, adhesive approach, and type of resin composite used and placement technique of the resin composite.

Citing Articles

Clinical Efficacy of a Novel Titania Nanoparticle-Reinforced Bonding Agent in Reducing Post-Restorative Sensitivity: A randomized clinical trial.

Amir N, Mansoor A, Noor N, Hussain K Pak J Med Sci. 2024; 40(7):1332-1337.

PMID: 39092050 PMC: 11255811. DOI: 10.12669/pjms.40.7.8779.

Influence of Cavity Lining on the 3-Year Clinical Outcome of Posterior Composite Restorations: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Nguyen A, Putz N, Michaelis M, Bitter K, Gernhardt C Dent J (Basel). 2024; 12(5).

PMID: 38786526 PMC: 11120593. DOI: 10.3390/dj12050128.

Impact of repeated preheating of bulk-fill resin composite on postoperative hypersensitivity; a randomized controlled clinical trial.

Elkady M, Abdelhakim S, Riad M BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24(1):453.

PMID: 38622629 PMC: 11017642. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-04170-4.

Two-year clinical performance of dual- and light-cure bulk-fill resin composites in Class ӀӀ restorations: a randomized clinical trial.

Elawsya M, Montaser M, El-Wassefy N, Zaghloul N Clin Oral Investig. 2024; 28(2):138.

PMID: 38321228 PMC: 10847201. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-024-05538-0.

Analysis of Cosmetic Effect of Nanocomposite Resin on Anterior Teeth.

Wang Y, Li J, Chen D, Li L Comput Math Methods Med. 2021; 2021:7367320.

PMID: 34887941 PMC: 8651348. DOI: 10.1155/2021/7367320.

References

Yiu C, Garcia-Godoy F, Tay F, Pashley D, Imazato S, King N . A nanoleakage perspective on bonding to oxidized dentin. J Dent Res. 2002; 81(9):628-32. DOI: 10.1177/154405910208100910. View

Conte Jr N, Goodchild J . Flowable composite resins: do they decrease microleakage and shrinkage stress?. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2013; 34 Spec No 4:1-6. View

Mobarak E, Daifalla L . Long-term nanoleakage depth and pattern of cervical restorations bonded with different adhesives. Oper Dent. 2011; 37(1):45-53. DOI: 10.2341/11-166-L. View

Larson T . The clinical significance and management of microleakage. Part one. Northwest Dent. 2005; 84(1):23-5, 28-9, 31, passim. View

Celik C, Arhun N, Yamanel K . Clinical evaluation of resin-based composites in posterior restorations: 12-month results. Eur J Dent. 2010; 4(1):57-65. PMC: 2798791. View

Williamson A, Hoggart B . Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales. J Clin Nurs. 2005; 14(7):798-804. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01121.x. View

Hirata R, Kabbach W, Scopin de Andrade O, Bonfante E, Giannini M, Coelho P . Bulk Fill Composites: An Anatomic Sculpting Technique. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2015; 27(6):335-43. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12159. View

Sancakli H, Yildiz E, Bayrak I, Ozel S . Effect of different adhesive strategies on the post-operative sensitivity of class I composite restorations. Eur J Dent. 2014; 8(1):15-22. PMC: 4054027. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.126234. View

Flury S, Hayoz S, Peutzfeldt A, Husler J, Lussi A . Depth of cure of resin composites: is the ISO 4049 method suitable for bulk fill materials?. Dent Mater. 2012; 28(5):521-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2012.02.002. View

10.

Berkowitz G, Spielman H, Matthews A, Vena D, Craig R, Curro F . Postoperative hypersensitivity and its relationship to preparation variables in Class I resin-based composite restorations: findings from the practitioners engaged in applied research and learning (PEARL) Network. Part 1. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2013; 34(3):e44-52. PMC: 4264581. View

11.

Setia M . Methodology Series Module 8: Designing Questionnaires and Clinical Record Forms. Indian J Dermatol. 2017; 62(2):130-134. PMC: 5363134. DOI: 10.4103/ijd.IJD_76_17. View

12.

Poskus L, Placido E, Cardoso P . Influence of placement techniques on Vickers and Knoop hardness of class II composite resin restorations. Dent Mater. 2004; 20(8):726-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2003.10.006. View

13.

Browning W, Blalock J, Callan R, Brackett W, Schull G, Davenport M . Postoperative sensitivity: a comparison of two bonding agents. Oper Dent. 2007; 32(2):112-7. DOI: 10.2341/06-58. View

14.

Alomari Q, Omar R, Akpata E . Effect of LED curing modes on postoperative sensitivity after Class II resin composite restorations. J Adhes Dent. 2008; 9(5):477-81. View

15.

Czasch P, Ilie N . In vitro comparison of mechanical properties and degree of cure of bulk fill composites. Clin Oral Investig. 2012; 17(1):227-35. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-012-0702-8. View

16.

Moosavi H, Kimyai S, Forghani M, Khodadadi R . The clinical effectiveness of various adhesive systems: an 18-month evaluation. Oper Dent. 2012; 38(2):134-41. DOI: 10.2341/12-110-CR. View

17.

de Melo Monteiro G, Montes M, Rolim T, de Oliveira Mota C, de Barros Correia Kyotoku B, Gomes A . Alternative methods for determining shrinkage in restorative resin composites. Dent Mater. 2011; 27(8):e176-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.04.014. View

18.

Carvalho R, Chersoni S, Frankenberger R, Pashley D, Prati C, Tay F . A challenge to the conventional wisdom that simultaneous etching and resin infiltration always occurs in self-etch adhesives. Biomaterials. 2004; 26(9):1035-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.04.003. View

19.

Benetti A, Havndrup-Pedersen C, Honore D, Pedersen M, Pallesen U . Bulk-fill resin composites: polymerization contraction, depth of cure, and gap formation. Oper Dent. 2014; 40(2):190-200. DOI: 10.2341/13-324-L. View

20.

Blanchard P, Wong Y, Matthews A, Vena D, Craig R, Curro F . Restoration variables and postoperative hypersensitivity in Class I restorations: PEARL Network findings. Part 2. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2013; 34(4):e62-8. PMC: 4392922. View