The Impact of Bis-GMA Free and Bis-GMA Containing Resin Composite As Posterior Restoration on Marginal Integrity: a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Overview

Journal BMC Oral Health

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2023 Dec 20

PMID 38114979

Authors

Sara Ahmed Reda

Yasser Fathi Hussein

Mona Riad

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: There have been concerns surrounding the utilization of Bis-GMA, a type of bisphenol A (BPA) derivative, within the dental industry. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of bulk fill Bis-GMA-free resin composite class II restorations in respect of its marginal integrity in comparison to bulk fill Bis-GMA-containing resin composite class II restorations over a 12-month period in a parallel clinical trial utilizing a split-mouth, double-blind, randomized strategy.

Methods: 20 patients participated in this study. Each patient has received one pair of class II posterior restorations, Bis-GMA-free (Admira fusion x-tra), and Bis-GMA containing (x-tra fil) on each side of the mouth (split-mouth strategy), (n = 40). The restorations' marginal integrity was evaluated based on Ryge's criteria (modified USPHS) at baseline (after 1 week), as well as 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and after 12 months of follow-up by two calibrated examiners. The statistical analyses utilizing the Friedman and Wilcoxon tests, the significance level was adjusted to 0.05.

Results: Following the 12-month period, all patients attended the recall visits to evaluate the restorations. The Wilcoxon signed-rank and Friedman tests, revealed that both types of bulk fill had 100% of Alpha (A) scores at baseline and after 1 month with no significant statistical differences. After 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, both tested bulk fill restorations showed Bravo (B) score with Bis-GMA free 10% and 5% for Bis-GMA containing with no statistically significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) for clinical marginal integrity parameter in USPHS criteria.

Conclusions: Bis-GMA-free resin composites demonstrated satisfactory, marginal integrity compared with Bis-GMA-containing resin composites within 12 months.

Trial Registration: The protocol of the current study was registered at www.

Clinicaltrials: gov , with the identification number NCT05480852 on 29/07/2022. All procedures involving human participants were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Dentistry, Minia University, Egypt, under the approval number 419 on 27/06/2020.

Citing Articles

Proposal of a Modular Classification System for Direct Dental Resin Composites Based on Clinical Applications.

Francois P, Izart M, Fasham T, Smail Y, Jannot M, Le Goff S Polymers (Basel). 2025; 17(5).

PMID: 40076058 PMC: 11902481. DOI: 10.3390/polym17050564.

Low-level laser treatment's ability to reduce dry socket pain.

Minervini G, Franco R, Martelli M, Hafedh S, Marrapodi M, Di Blasio M Acta Odontol Scand. 2024; 83:631-641.

PMID: 39530606 PMC: 11633036. DOI: 10.2340/aos.v83.42261.

Clinical, radiographic and biochemical assessment of proximal cavities restored with composite resin using incremental vs. bulk packing techniques: One-year randomized clinical trial.

Abdelaziz M, Fathy S, AlAraby A, Shehab W, Temirek M BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24(1):1162.

PMID: 39350180 PMC: 11443838. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-04746-0.

References

Mahmoud S, El-Embaby A, AbdAllah A . Clinical performance of ormocer, nanofilled, and nanoceramic resin composites in Class I and Class II restorations: a three-year evaluation. Oper Dent. 2013; 39(1):32-42. DOI: 10.2341/12-313-C. View

Peutzfeldt A . Resin composites in dentistry: the monomer systems. Eur J Oral Sci. 1997; 105(2):97-116. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1997.tb00188.x. View

Heintze S, Monreal D, Peschke A . Marginal Quality of Class II Composite Restorations Placed in Bulk Compared to an Incremental Technique: Evaluation with SEM and Stereomicroscope. J Adhes Dent. 2015; 17(2):147-54. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a33973. View

Mahmoud S, El-Embaby A, AbdAllah A, Hamama H . Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer, nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorative systems in posterior teeth. J Adhes Dent. 2008; 10(4):315-22. View

Lopes G, Vieira L, Araujo E . Direct composite resin restorations: a review of some clinical procedures to achieve predictable results in posterior teeth. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2004; 16(1):19-31. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2004.tb00446.x. View

Sarrett D . Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations. Dent Mater. 2005; 21(1):9-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2004.10.001. View

Savadi Oskoee S, Bahari M, Navimipour E, Ajami A, Ghiasvand N, Savadi Oskoee A . Factors affecting marginal integrity of class II bulk-fill composite resin restorations. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2017; 11(2):101-109. PMC: 5519990. DOI: 10.15171/joddd.2017.019. View

Duarte Jr S, Saad J . Marginal adaptation of Class 2 adhesive restorations. Quintessence Int. 2008; 39(5):413-9. View

Kohler B, Rasmusson C, Odman P . A five-year clinical evaluation of Class II composite resin restorations. J Dent. 2000; 28(2):111-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(99)00059-7. View

10.

Li X, Pongprueksa P, Van Meerbeek B, de Munck J . Curing profile of bulk-fill resin-based composites. J Dent. 2015; 43(6):664-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.01.002. View

11.

Monsarrat P, Garnier S, Vergnes J, Nasr K, Grosgogeat B, Joniot S . Survival of directly placed ormocer-based restorative materials: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. Dent Mater. 2017; 33(5):e212-e220. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2017.01.019. View

12.

Brauer G . Properties of sealants containing bis-GMA and various diluents. J Dent Res. 1978; 57(4):597-607. DOI: 10.1177/00220345780570041101. View

13.

Furness A, Tadros M, Looney S, Rueggeberg F . Effect of bulk/incremental fill on internal gap formation of bulk-fill composites. J Dent. 2014; 42(4):439-49. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.01.005. View

14.

Ferracane J, MITCHEM J, Condon J, Todd R . Wear and marginal breakdown of composites with various degrees of cure. J Dent Res. 1997; 76(8):1508-16. DOI: 10.1177/00220345970760081401. View

15.

Malhotra N, Kundabala M, Shashirashmi A . Strategies to overcome polymerization shrinkage--materials and techniques. A review. Dent Update. 2010; 37(2):115-8, 120-2, 124-5. DOI: 10.12968/denu.2010.37.2.115. View

16.

van Dijken J, Pallesen U . A randomized controlled three year evaluation of "bulk-filled" posterior resin restorations based on stress decreasing resin technology. Dent Mater. 2014; 30(9):e245-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2014.05.028. View

17.

Cvar J, Ryge G . Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971. Clin Oral Investig. 2005; 9(4):215-32. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-005-0018-z. View

18.

Feilzer A, de Gee A, Davidson C . Quantitative determination of stress reduction by flow in composite restorations. Dent Mater. 1990; 6(3):167-71. DOI: 10.1016/0109-5641(90)90023-8. View

19.

Manuja N, Pandit I, Srivastava N, Gugnani N, Nagpal R . Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of various esthetic restorative materials to dentin: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2011; 29(1):7-13. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.79913. View

20.

Augusto M, Borges A, Pucci C, Mailart M, Torres C . Effect of whitening toothpastes on wear and roughness of ormocer and methacrylate-based composites. Am J Dent. 2019; 31(6):303-308. View