Use of flowable composite as intermediary layer in non-carious cervical lesions restored with composite resin: 48-month follow-up

Loguercio, Alessandro Dourado; Amaral, Roberto César do; Garcia, Eugênio; Reis, Alessandra

doi:10.1590/S1980-65232010000200022

Abstracts

PURPOSE: In this case report, the clinical performance of a microhybrid resin composite placed with or without a flowable resin composite was compared, over a 48-month period. CASE DESCRIPTION: The patient of this case report presented 2 pairs of equivalent cervical abfraction lesions, under occlusion. Four restorations were placed in teeth 34, 35, 44 and 45. The restorations were divided into groups (Single Bond + Filtek-Flow + Filtek Z250 or Single Bond + Filtek Z250) and the materials were applied according to the manufactures instructions. Two previously calibrated operators placed the restorations and two other independent examiners evaluated the restorations at baseline and after 48 months, according to the USPHS criteria and modified criteria for color match. CONCLUSION: After 48 months of evaluation the lesions restored with Filtek-Flow as a liner under Filtek Z250 did not show better clinical performance than the restorations without Filtek-Flow. All restorations showed a trend toward dark yellowing after 48 months.

Clinical evaluation; adhesive systems; composite resin; flowable composite

OBJETIVO: Este relato de caso compara o desempenho clínico após 48 meses de restaurações de lesões cervicais não cariosas com uma resina composta microhíbrida associada ou não a uma camada de resina flow como um agente intermediário. DESCRIÇÃO DO CASO: O paciente do presente caso apresentava 2 pares de lesões cervicais não cariosas ocasionadas por abfração sob oclusão. Nos elementos dentários 35 e 44 as restaurações foram feitas com Single Bond + Filtek-Flow + Filtek Z250 e nos elementos 45 e 34 com Single Bond + Filtek Z250, sendo os materiais empregados de acordo com as recomendações do fabricante. Dois operadores previamente calibrados colocaram as restaurações e dois outros examinadores avaliaram as restaurações no período imediato (baseline) e após 48 meses, de acordo os critérios USPHS modificado para o critério cor. CONCLUSÃO: Após 48 meses as lesões restauradas com a resina flow como uma camada intermediária não demonstraram melhor desempenho clínico em relação às restaurações sem a resina flow. Todos os grupos apresentaram uma tendência à descoloração após 48 meses de acompanhamento clínico.

Avaliação clínica; sistemas adesivos; resina composta; resina flow

CASE REPORT

Use of flowable composite as intermediary layer in non-carious cervical lesions restored with composite resin: 48-month follow-up

Avaliação clínica de uma resina flow como uma camada intermediária em restaurações de lesões cervicais não cariosas: 48 meses

Alessandro Dourado Loguercio^I; Roberto César do Amaral^II; Eugênio Garcia^III; Alessandra Reis^I

^IDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, State University of Ponta Grossa, Ponta Grossa, PR, Brazil and Master's Program in Dentistry

^IIDental Materials and Restorative Dentistry Department, "Universidade do Oeste de Santa Catarina", Joaçaba, SC, Brazil

^IIIGradute Program in Dental Materials, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

^{Correspondence} Correspondence: Alessandro Dourado Loguercio Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa Mestrado em Odontologia Av. General Carlos Cavalcanti, 4748; Bloco M - Sala 64A - Uvaranas Ponta Grossa, PR - Brasil 84030-900 Email: aloguercio@hotmail.com

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: In this case report, the clinical performance of a microhybrid resin composite placed with or without a flowable resin composite was compared, over a 48-month period.

CASE DESCRIPTION: The patient of this case report presented 2 pairs of equivalent cervical abfraction lesions, under occlusion. Four restorations were placed in teeth 34, 35, 44 and 45. The restorations were divided into groups (Single Bond + Filtek-Flow + Filtek Z250 or Single Bond + Filtek Z250) and the materials were applied according to the manufactures instructions. Two previously calibrated operators placed the restorations and two other independent examiners evaluated the restorations at baseline and after 48 months, according to the USPHS criteria and modified criteria for color match.

CONCLUSION: After 48 months of evaluation the lesions restored with Filtek-Flow as a liner under Filtek Z250 did not show better clinical performance than the restorations without Filtek-Flow. All restorations showed a trend toward dark yellowing after 48 months.

Key words: Clinical evaluation; adhesive systems; composite resin; flowable composite

RESUMO

OBJETIVO: Este relato de caso compara o desempenho clínico após 48 meses de restaurações de lesões cervicais não cariosas com uma resina composta microhíbrida associada ou não a uma camada de resina flow como um agente intermediário.

DESCRIÇÃO DO CASO: O paciente do presente caso apresentava 2 pares de lesões cervicais não cariosas ocasionadas por abfração sob oclusão. Nos elementos dentários 35 e 44 as restaurações foram feitas com Single Bond + Filtek-Flow + Filtek Z250 e nos elementos 45 e 34 com Single Bond + Filtek Z250, sendo os materiais empregados de acordo com as recomendações do fabricante. Dois operadores previamente calibrados colocaram as restaurações e dois outros examinadores avaliaram as restaurações no período imediato (baseline) e após 48 meses, de acordo os critérios USPHS modificado para o critério cor.

CONCLUSÃO: Após 48 meses as lesões restauradas com a resina flow como uma camada intermediária não demonstraram melhor desempenho clínico em relação às restaurações sem a resina flow. Todos os grupos apresentaram uma tendência à descoloração após 48 meses de acompanhamento clínico.

Palavras-chaves: Avaliação clínica; sistemas adesivos; resina composta; resina flow

Texto completo disponível apenas em PDF.

Full text available only in PDF format.

Received: October 27, 2009

Accepted: March 1, 2010

Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors state that there are no financial and personal conflicts of interest that could have inappropriately influenced their work.

1. Levitch LC, Bader JD, Shugars DA, Heymann HO. Non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent 1994;22:195-207.
2. De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, et al. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results J Dent Res 2005;84:118-32.
3. Browning WD, Brackett WW, Gilpatrick RO. Two-year clinical comparison of a microfilled and a hybrid resin based composite in non-carious class V lesions. Oper Dent 2000;25:46-50.
4. Baratieri LN, Canabarro S, Lopes GC, Ritter AV. Effect of resin viscosity and enamel beveling on the clinical performance of Class V composite restorations: Three-year results Oper Dent 2003;28:482-7.
5. Tay FR, Pashley DH. Resin bonding to cervical sclerotic dentin: A review. J Dent 2004;32:173-96.
6. Peumans M, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials. Dent Mater 2005;21:864-81.
7. 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;122:41-7.
8. Reis A, Loguercio AD. Materiais Dentários Restauradores Diretos: dos fundamentos a aplicação clínica. Edt. Santos: São Paulo, 2007.
9. Bayne SC, Thompson JY, Swift Jr EJ, Ttamatiedes P, Wilkerson M. A characterization of first-generation flowable composites. J Am Dent Assoc 1998;129:567-77.
10. Unterbrink GL, Liebenberg WH. Flowable resin composites as "filled adhesives": literature review and clinical recommendations. Quintessence Int 1999;30:249-57.
11. Swift Jr EJ, Perdigão J, Heymann HO, Wilder Jr AD, Bayne SC, May Jr KN, et al. Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of a filled and unfilled dentin adhesive. J Dent 2001;29:1-6.
12. Cvar JF, Ryge G. Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971. Clin Oral Investig 2005;9:215-32.
13. Reusens B, D'hoore W, Vreven J. In vivo comparison of a microfilled and hybrid minifilled composite resin in class III restorations: 2-year follow-up. Clin Oral Invest 1999;3:62-9.
14. Choi KK, Condon JR, Ferracane JL. The effect of adhesive thickness on polymerization contraction stress of composite. J Dent Res 2000;79:812-7.
15. Reis A, Loguercio AD. A 24-month follow-up of flowable resin composite as an intermediate layer in non-carious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 2006;31:523-9.

Correspondence:

Alessandro Dourado Loguercio

Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa

Mestrado em Odontologia

Av. General Carlos Cavalcanti, 4748; Bloco M - Sala 64A - Uvaranas

Ponta Grossa, PR - Brasil 84030-900

Email:

aloguercio@hotmail.com

Publication Dates

Publication in this collection
26 Aug 2011
Date of issue
2010

History

Received
02 Oct 2009
Accepted
01 Mar 2010

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

[1] 1. Levitch LC, Bader JD, Shugars DA, Heymann HO. Non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent 1994;22:195-207.

[2] 2. De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, et al. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results J Dent Res 2005;84:118-32.

[3] 3. Browning WD, Brackett WW, Gilpatrick RO. Two-year clinical comparison of a microfilled and a hybrid resin based composite in non-carious class V lesions. Oper Dent 2000;25:46-50.

[4] 4. Baratieri LN, Canabarro S, Lopes GC, Ritter AV. Effect of resin viscosity and enamel beveling on the clinical performance of Class V composite restorations: Three-year results Oper Dent 2003;28:482-7.

[5] 5. Tay FR, Pashley DH. Resin bonding to cervical sclerotic dentin: A review. J Dent 2004;32:173-96.

[6] 6. Peumans M, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials. Dent Mater 2005;21:864-81.

[7] 7. 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;122:41-7.

[8] 8. Reis A, Loguercio AD. Materiais Dentários Restauradores Diretos: dos fundamentos a aplicação clínica. Edt. Santos: São Paulo, 2007.

[9] 9. Bayne SC, Thompson JY, Swift Jr EJ, Ttamatiedes P, Wilkerson M. A characterization of first-generation flowable composites. J Am Dent Assoc 1998;129:567-77.

[10] 10. Unterbrink GL, Liebenberg WH. Flowable resin composites as "filled adhesives": literature review and clinical recommendations. Quintessence Int 1999;30:249-57.

[11] 11. Swift Jr EJ, Perdigão J, Heymann HO, Wilder Jr AD, Bayne SC, May Jr KN, et al. Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of a filled and unfilled dentin adhesive. J Dent 2001;29:1-6.

[12] 12. Cvar JF, Ryge G. Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971. Clin Oral Investig 2005;9:215-32.

[13] 13. Reusens B, D'hoore W, Vreven J. In vivo comparison of a microfilled and hybrid minifilled composite resin in class III restorations: 2-year follow-up. Clin Oral Invest 1999;3:62-9.

[14] 14. Choi KK, Condon JR, Ferracane JL. The effect of adhesive thickness on polymerization contraction stress of composite. J Dent Res 2000;79:812-7.

[15] 15. Reis A, Loguercio AD. A 24-month follow-up of flowable resin composite as an intermediate layer in non-carious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 2006;31:523-9.

Brasil

Brasil

Use of flowable composite as intermediary layer in non-carious cervical lesions restored with composite resin: 48-month follow-up

Avaliação clínica de uma resina flow como uma camada intermediária em restaurações de lesões cervicais não cariosas: 48 meses

Abstracts

Publication Dates

History