International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  14 (2024)
Volume  13 (2023)
Volume  12 (2022)
Volume  11 (2021)
Volume  10 (2020)
Volume  9 (2019)
Volume  8 (2018)
Volume  7 (2017)
Volume  6 (2016)
Volume  5 (2015)
Volume  4 (2014)
Volume  3 (2013)
Volume  2 (2012)
Volume  1 (2011)
Related articles

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 3 ( July-September, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Clinical Evaluation of Nanohybrid Organically Modified Ceramic and Nanohybrid Conventional Bulk-fill Resin Composite in Proximal Compound Posterior Restorations: Randomized Clinical Study

Safinaz H Fahmy, Mohamed R El-Bialy, Omaima M Safwat

Keywords : Bulk-fill resin composite ceramics, Carious lesions, Criteria, Organically modified

Citation Information : Fahmy SH, El-Bialy MR, Safwat OM. Clinical Evaluation of Nanohybrid Organically Modified Ceramic and Nanohybrid Conventional Bulk-fill Resin Composite in Proximal Compound Posterior Restorations: Randomized Clinical Study. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2024; 14 (3):146-152.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1466

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 30-09-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Purpose: This study compared the clinical efficacy of nanohybrid organically modified ceramic (ORMOCER) bulk-fill resin composite vs nanohybrid conventional bulk-fill resin composite in proximal compound posterior restorations. Materials and methods: In this randomized controlled clinical study, a total of 30 proximal carious lesions were restored randomly with either the intervention nanohybrid ORMOCER bulk-fill resin composite (Admira Fusion X-tra) or nanohybrid conventional bulk-fill resin composite (Grandioso X-tra). Two assessors who were blinded to the study procedures evaluated restorations at baseline (1 week), 6 months, and 12 months using the World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria, measuring functional, esthetic, and biological properties. Frequency and percentage represented the categorical data. Intragroup comparisons between interventions were calculated using the Chi-squared test. Results: The overall rate of survival of nanohybrid ORMOCER bulk-fill resin composite and nanohybrid conventional bulk-fill resin composite for proximal restorations was evaluated after 1 year. No restorations failed after 12 months in biological, esthetic, and functional properties, with no statistically significant difference in intergroup or intragroup comparisons. However, the intergroup comparison between both materials showed a statistically significant difference in color match and translucency (p = 0.0003). Conclusion: Under the study limitations, it can be concluded that nanohybrid ORMOCER bulk-fill resin composite showed comparable clinical efficacy to the nanohybrid conventional bulk-fill resin composite. Nanohybrid ORMOCER bulk-fill resin composite demonstrated slightly superior esthetic results during the one-year follow-up.

PDF Share
  1. Senthilkumar V, Ramesh S. Systematic review on alternative methods for caries removal in permanent teeth. J Conserv Dent 2020;23(1):2–9. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_263_19
  2. Bjørndal L, Simon S, Tomson PL, et al. Management of deep caries and the exposed pulp. Int Endod J 2019;52(7):949–973. DOI: 10.1111/iej.13128
  3. Arbildo-Vega HI, Lapinska B, Panda S, et al. Clinical effectiveness of bulk-fill and conventional resin composite restorations: systematic review and meta-analysis. Polymers 2020;12(8):1786. DOI: 10.3390/polym12081786
  4. Bhadra D, Shah NC, Rao AS, et al. A 1-year comparative evaluation of clinical performance of nanohybrid composite with Activa‚Ñ¢ bioactive composite in Class II carious lesion: a randomized control study. J Conserv Dent 2019;22(1):92–96. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_511_18
  5. Canali GD, Ignácio SA, Rached RN, et al. One-year clinical evaluation of bulk-fill flowable vs. regular nanofilled composite in non-carious cervical lesions. Clin Oral Investig 2019;23:889–897. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2509-8
  6. Keßler A, Kaisarly D, Hickel R, et al. Effect of fiber incorporation on the contraction stress of composite materials. Clin Oral Investig 2019;23:1461–1471. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2572-1
  7. Sengupta A, Naka O, Mehta SB, et al. The clinical performance of bulk-fill versus the incremental layered application of direct resin composite restorations: a systematic review. Evid Based Dent 2023;24(3):143. DOI: 10.1038/s41432-023-00905-4
  8. Jung JH, Park SH. Comparison of polymerization shrinkage, physical properties, and marginal adaptation of flowable and restorative bulk fill resin-based composites. Oper Dent 2017;42(4):375–386. DOI: 10.2341/16-254-L
  9. Ólafsson VG, Ritter AV, Swift EJ Jr, et al. Effect of composite type and placement technique on cuspal strain. J Esthet Restor Dent 2018;30(1):30–38. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12339
  10. Gatica EP, Ojeda GD, Wendler M. Contemporary flowable bulk-fill resin-based composites: a systematic review. Biomater Investig Dent 2023;10(1):8. DOI: 10.1080/26415275.2023.2175685
  11. Loguercio AD, De Paula EA, Hass V, et al. A new universal simplified adhesive: 36-month randomized double-blind clinical trial. J Dent 2015;43(9):1083–1092. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.07.005
  12. Tellez M, Gomez J, Pretty I, et al. Evidence on existing caries risk assessment systems: are they predictive of future caries? Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2013;41(1):67–78. DOI: 10.1111/cdoe.12003
  13. Innes NP, Frencken JE, Bjørndal L, et al. Managing carious lesions: consensus recommendations on terminology. Adv Dent Res 2016;28(2):49–57. DOI: 10.1177/0022034516639276
  14. Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, et al. FDI World Dental Federation: clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations—update and clinical examples. Clin Oral Investig 2010;14:349–366. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-010-0432-8
  15. Santos MJ. A restorative approach for class II resin composite restorations: a two-year follow-up. Oper Dent 2015;40(1):19–24. DOI: 10.2341/13-142-T
  16. Demarco FF, Cenci MS, Montagner AF, et al. Longevity of composite restorations is definitely not only about materials. Dent Mater 2022;39(1):1–12. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2022.11.009
  17. Chesterman J, Jowett A, Gallacher A, et al. Bulk-fill resin-based composite restorative materials: a review. Br Dent J 2017;222(5):337–344. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.214
  18. Furtado MO. Methacrylate free restorative resins: Admira Fusion. 2019.
  19. Leprince JG, Palin WM, Vanacker J, et al. Physico-mechanical characteristics of commercially available bulk-fill composites. J Dent 2014;42(8):993–1000. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.05.009
  20. Paganini A, Attin T, Tauböck TT. Margin integrity of bulk-fill composite restorations in primary teeth. Materials 2020;13(17):3802. DOI: 10.3390/ma13173802
  21. Şenol AA, Karabulut Gençer B, Tarçın B, et al. Microleakage and marginal integrity of ormocer/methacrylate-based bulk-fill resin restorations in MOD cavities: SEM and stereomicroscopic evaluation. Polymers 2023;15(7):1716. DOI: 10.3390/polym15071716
  22. Hussien YH, Abdalla AI, Salama MM. Cuspal deflection of premolar teeth restored with composite re sin using either bulk fill or incremental technique. extraction. 2020;17:18.
  23. Yarmohamadi E, Jahromi PR, Akbarzadeh M. Comparison of cuspal deflection and microleakage of premolar teeth restored with three restorative materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018;19(6):684–689. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2320
  24. Tauböck TT, Jäger F, Attin T. Polymerization shrinkage and shrinkage force kinetics of high- and low-viscosity dimethacrylate- and ormocer-based bulk-fill resin composites. Odontology 2019;107:103–110. DOI: 10.1007/s10266-018-0369-y
  25. Civelek A, Ersoy M, L'Hotelier E, et al. Polymerization shrinkage and microleakage in Class II cavities of various resin composites. Oper Dent 2003;28(5):635–641. DOI: 10.2341/1559-2863-28-6-1
  26. Politi I, McHugh LE, Al-Fodeh RS, et al. Modification of the restoration protocol for resin-based composite (RBC) restoratives (conventional and bulk fill) on cuspal movement and microleakage score in molar teeth. Dent Mater 2018;34(9):1271–1277. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2018.05.010
  27. Benetti AR, Havndrup-Pedersen C, Honoré D, et al. Bulk-fill resin composites: polymerization contraction, depth of cure, and gap formation. Oper Dent 2015;40(2):190–200. DOI: 10.2341/13-324-L
  28. Oltramare RS, Odermatt R, Burrer P, et al. Depth-related curing potential of ormocer-and dimethacrylate-based bulk-fill composites. Materials 2021;14(22):6753. DOI: 10.3390/ma14226753
  29. Atabek D, Aktaş N, Sakaryali D, et al. Two-year clinical performance of sonic-resin placement system in posterior restorations. Quintessence Int 2017;48(9):743. DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a38855
  30. Hegde V, Sali AV. Fracture resistance of posterior teeth restored with high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composites in comparison to the incremental placement technique. J Conserv Dent 2017;20(5):360–364. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_198_17
  31. Torres CR, Jurema AL, Souza MY, et al. Bulk-fill versus layering pure ormocer posterior restorations: a randomized split-mouth clinical trial. Am J Dent 2021;34(3):143–149. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105154
  32. Zubrzycki J, Klepka T, Marchewka M, et al. Tests of dental properties of composite materials containing nanohybrid filler. Materials 2022;16(1):348. DOI: 10.3390/ma16010348
  33. Gunwal MK, Shenoi PR, Paranjape T, et al. Evaluation of fracture resistance and mode of failure of premolars restored with nanohybrid composite, ORMOCER and ceramic inlays. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2018;8(2):134–139. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2017.08.004
  34. El-Askary FS, Botros SA, Soliman ZDED, et al. Flexure strength of methacrylate-and ormocer-based bulk fill resin composites: effect of material thickness and distance to photo-polymerization device. J Adhes Sci Technol 2021;35(5):547–558. DOI: 10.1080/01694243.2020.1816776
  35. Van Rensburg, Kritzinger D, Arnold S, et al. In vitro comparison of the physical and mechanical properties of an ormocer with an ormocer-based composite and a nanocomposite restorative material. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2023.
  36. Schubert A, Ziegler C, Bernhard A, et al. Cytotoxic effects to mouse and human gingival fibroblasts of a nanohybrid ormocer versus dimethacrylate-based composites. Clin Oral Investig 2019;23:133–139. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2419-9
  37. Dietschi D, Fahl N. Shading concepts and layering techniques to master direct anterior composite restorations: an update. Br Dent J 2016;221(12):765–771. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2016.944
  38. Durand LB, Ruiz-López J, Perez BG, et al. Color, lightness, chroma, hue, and translucency adjustment potential of resin composites using CIEDE2000 color difference formula. J Esthet Restor Dent 2021;33(6):836–843. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12689
  39. Sherif RM, El-Fattah A, Wegdan M, et al. Color stability and surface roughness of an organically modified ceramic (ormocer) and a methacrylate based composite resins (an in-vitro study). Alex Dent J 2020;45(1):100–105. DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2020.79967
  40. Zecin-Deren A, Lukomska-Szymanska M, Szczesio-Wlodarczyk A, et al. The influence of application protocol of simplified and universal adhesives on the dentin bonding performance. Appl Sci 2019;10(1):124. DOI: 10.3390/app10010124
  41. Schenkel AB, Veitz-Keenan A. Dental cavity liners for Class I and Class II resin-based composite restorations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;(3). DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010526.pub3
  42. Colombo M, Gallo S, Poggio C, et al. New resin-based bulk-fill composites: In vitro evaluation of micro-hardness and depth of cure as infection risk indexes. Materials 2020;13(6):1308. DOI: 10.3390/ma13061308
  43. Miletic V, Peric D, Milosevic M, et al. Local deformation fields and marginal integrity of sculptable bulk-fill, low-shrinkage and conventional composites. Dent Mater 2016;32(11):1441–1451. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2016.09.011
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.