Treatment of Class II Caries Lesions with Application of Packable and Conventional Resin Composites: Clinical and Experimental Study

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Timur V. Melkumyan, Angela D. Dadamova, Surayo Sh. Sheralieva, Nuritdin Kh. Kamilov, Fatima Yu. Daurova

 
International Journal of Biomedicine. 2020;10(1):66-69.
DOI: 10.21103/Article10(1)_OA11
Originally published March 15, 2020

Abstract: 

Background: The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of packable and conventional composites in treatment of patients with class II caries lesions (CIICLs).
Methods and Results: The clinical part of the study was conducted on patients with indications for composite restoration of at least two adjacent CIICCLs. There were 32 patients in whom 72 (36 pairs) teeth with caries pathology were treated. One tooth in every pair was randomly assigned for restoration with Filtek Z250 (Cl-Group 1, n=36) and another one with preheated Filtek-Р60 (Cl-Group 2, n=36). The mean observation time for composite restorations was 47.1±13.8 months. The modified USPHS criteria list was applied for clinical evaluation of the four following clinical parameters, which were used in the study: secondary caries, anatomy form, occlusal contact, and surface texture.
The experimental study was conducted on 40 filling samples, which were made of conventional Filtek Z250 (Exp-Group 1, n=20) and packable Filtek Р60 (Exp-Group 2, n=20) with the help of a transparent plastic mold. Every experimental group was randomly divided into two subgroups (A and B): polymerized filling samples of Exp-Subgroups 1A (n=10) and 2A (n=10) were put into the test right after polymerization; samples of Exp-Subgroups 1B (n=10) and 2B (n=10) were passed through a shear-strength test after exposure to four consecutive cycles of autoclaving. Shear-strength measurements were made in an Ultratest Machine (Ultradent, USA), which was adapted to perform a proper test.
The incidence of secondary caries in both clinical groups (two incidents in Gl-Group 1 and one incident in Cl-Croup 2) was very low, and comparative analysis of obtained results did not reveal any significant difference between them.
In relation to criteria of anatomy form, the percentage of alpha level of tooth restorations that were done with packable Filtek P60, was 38.9%. Bravo estimates had 50% of restored teeth. Tooth restorations with conventional Filtek Z250 had alpha level in 58.3% and bravo in 41.7% of cases. Occlusal contact and surface texture, the efficacy of CIICL management was better in teeth that had been treated with packable composite.
Analysis of experimental findings revealed that the mean value of shear strength for Filtek Р60 filling samples, which were tested immediately after polymerization, was lower than the same parameter for Filtek Z250 on 25.8% (P<0.01). In addition, it was established that the studied parameter for filling samples of Filtek Z250 had decreased by 1.4 times after cycles of autoclaving (P<0.05). A similar tendency was observed for Filtek-Р60 too, but only 11% showed a decrease in value (P<0.05).
Conclusions: Based on obtained clinical findings it can be concluded that treatment of CIICLs with application of packable Filtek Р60 and conventional Filtek Z250 does not lead to a recurrence of caries in a period of 47.1±13.8 months. The issue of more frequent chipping of composite restorations that were made of packable Filtek Р60, but not of conventional Filtek Z250, could be of clinical value in treatment planning of patients with excessive occlusal load and tooth wear. In addition, it was clinically noticed that tooth composite restorations made of packable Filtek Р60 had values of surface texture that were close to alpha level.

Keywords: 
class II caries lesions • packable and conventional composites • shear strength
References: 
  1. Lyons K; Ministry of Health. Direct placement restorative materials for use in posterior teeth: the current options. N Z Dent J. 2003;99(1):10-5.
  2. Qvist V, Qvist J, Mjor IA. Placement and longevity of tooth-colored restorations in Denmark. Acta Odontol Scand. 1990;48(5):305-11.
  3. Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K, van Dijken JW, Funegård U, Lindberg A, Nilsson M. Selection of dental materials and longevity of replaced restorations in Public Dental Health clinics in northern Sweden. J Dent. 2009 Sep;37(9):673-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2009.04.010.
  4. Wakefield CW, Kofford KR. Advances in restorative materials. Dent Clin North Am. 2001;45(1):7-29.
  5. Shortall AC, Uctasli S, Marquis PM. Fracture resistance of anterior, posterior and universal light activated composite restoratives. Oper Dent. 2001;26(1):87–96.
  6. Manhart J, Kunzelmann KH, Chen HY, Hickel R. Mechanical properties of new composite restorative materials. J Biomed l Mate Res. 2000;53(4):353-61.
  7. Wang K, Yin R, Nie J, Yu Q. Synthesis and characterization of a novel dimethacrylate based on adamantine as possible dental resins. Mater Sci Eng. 2012; C32:1141-1145
  8. Elderton RJ. Restorations without conventional cavity preparations. Int Dent J. 1988;38(2):112–8.
  9. Suzuki S. Does the wear resistance of packable composite equal that of dental amalgam? J Esthet Restor Dent 2004;16(6):355-65; discussion 365-7.
  10. Qvist J, Qvist V, Mjor IA. Placement and longevity of amalgam restorations in Denmark. Acta Odontol Scand 1990;48(5):297–303.
  11. Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JM, Loomans BA. A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. Dent Mater 2007;23(1):2–8.
  12. Hahn LJ, Kloiber R, Leininger RW, Vimy MJ, Lorscheider FL. Whole-body imaging of the distribution of mercury released from dental fillings into monkey tissues. FASEB J. 1990;4(14):3256–60.
  13. Brownawell AM, Berent S, Brent RL, Bruckner JV, Doull J, Gershwin EM, et al. The potential adverse health effects of dental amalgam. Toxicol Rev. 2005;24(1):1–10.
  14. Rathore M, Singh A, Pant VA. The dental amalgam toxicity fear: a myth or actuality. Toxicol Int. 2012;19(2):81–8. doi: 10.4103/0971-6580.97191.
  15. Loomans BA, Opdam NJ, Roeters JF, Bronkhorst EM, Plasschaert AJ. Influence of composite resin consistency and placement technique on proximal contact tightness of Class II restorations. J Adhes Dent. 2006;8(5):305–10.
  16. de Souza FB, Guimaraes RP, Silva CH. A clinical evaluation of packable and microhybrid resin composite restorations: one-year report. Quintessence Int. 2005;36(1):41.
  17. Cobb DS, MacGregor KM, Vargas MA, Denehy GE. The physical properties of packable and conventional posterior resin-based composites: a comparison. J Am Dent Assoc. 2000 Nov;131(11):1610-5.
  18. Clelland NL, Pagnotto MP, Kerby RE, Seghi RR. Relative wear of flowable and highly filled composite. J Prosthet Dent. 2005 Feb;93(2):153-7.
  19. Knobloch L, Kerby RE, Clelland N, Lee J. Hardness and degree of conversion of posterior packable composites. Oper Dent. 2004 Nov-Dec;29(6):642-9.
  20. Mair LH. Ten-year clinical assessment of three posterior resin composites and two amalgams. Quintessence Int. 1998;29(8):483–90.
  21. Turssi CP, Faraoni-Romano JJ, de Menezes M, Serra MC. Comparative study of the wear behavior of composites for posterior restorations. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2007;18(1):143–7.
  22. Willems G, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Celis JP, Vanherle G. A classification of dental composites according to their morphological and mechanical characteristics. Dent Mater. 1992;8(5):310-9.

Download Article
Received February 27, 2020.
Accepted March 11, 2020.
©2020 International Medical Research and Development Corporation.