Clinical Performance of Fiber-Reinforced Nanofilled Resin Composite in Extensively Carious Posterior Teeth of Children: 30-Month Evaluation

Objective: To evaluate the 30-month clinical performance of a nanofilled-resin composite with or without glass-fiber layering in restorations of large cavities in posterior teeth of children. Study Design: A total of 71 restorations were placed in permanent molar teeth of 47 children (mean age 10.9 years) with (FRC; n=35) or without (RC; n=36) fiber layering. One operator placed all restorations. Restorations were evaluated according to the USPHS modified-Ryge criteria at baseline, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 30 months. The data were analyzed using Fisher's exact and chi-square tests and outcomes were compared using the Cochran-Q test (p<0.05). Results: The 30-month survival rates of the restorations were 97% and 97.1% in the RC and FRC groups, respectively. Nanofilled-resin restorations with or without glass fiber-layering showed similarly high clinical performance. No differences were detected between the evaluated criteria when comparing baseline with any of the evaluation periods (p<0.05). After 30 months there were no secondary caries, change in anatomical form or postoperative sensitivity. Only minor changes for marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, color match and surface texture were observed. Conclusion: It was concluded that nanofilled-resin composite applied with or without glass-fiber layering showed similar and good results in large cavities of posterior permanent teeth in children over a 30-month period.

Composite resins, Clinical study, Ryge criteria, Fiber-reinforcement, Molars

1. Manhart J, Chen HY, Hamm G, Hickel R. Review of the survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Operative dentistry; 29: 481-508, 2004.

2. Ferracane JL. Resin composite- state of the art. Dental materials 2011; 27: 29- 38.

3. Van Dijken JWV, Sunnegardh-Grönberg K. Fiber-reinforced packable resin composites in class II cavities. Journal of Dentistry; 34: 763-9, 2006.

4. Beun S, Glorieux T, Devaux J, Vreven J, Leloup G. Characterization of nanofilled compared to universal and microfilled composites. Dental Mate-rials; 23: 51-9, 2007.

5. Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes HB. An Application of Nanotechnology in Advanced Dental Materials. Journal of American Dental Association; 134: 1382-90, 2003.

6. Chen MH. Update on dental nanocomposites. J Dent Res; 89(6): 549-60, 2010.

7. Ernst CP, Brandenbush M, Meyer G, Canbek K, Gottschalk F, Willer-shausen B. Two-year clinical performance of a nanofiller vs a fine- particle hybrid resin composite. Clin Oral Invest; 10: 119-25, 2006.

8. Freilich MA, Meiers JC, Duncan JP, Goldberg AJ. Composition, architec-ture, and mechanical properties of fiber-reinforced composites. In: Freilich, et al. Editors. Fibre-Reinforced Composites in Clinical Dentistry. Quintes-sence publishing Co, Inc. Berlin 9-19, 1999.

9. Vallittu PK. Flexural properties of acrylic resin polymers reinforced with unidirectional and woven glass fiber. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry; 81: 318-26, 1999.

10. Xu HHK, Schumacher GE, Eichmiller FC, Peterson RC, Antonucci JM, Mueller HJ. Continuous-fiber performs reinforcement of dental resin composite restorations. Dental Materials; 19: 523-30, 2003.

11. Pereira CL, Demarco FF, Cenci MS, Osinaga PWR, Piovesan EM. Flexural strength of composites: influences of polyethylene fiber reinforcement and type of composite. Clin Oral Invest; 7: 116-9, 2003.

12. Eronat N, Candan Ü, Türkün M. Effects of glass fiber layering on the flex-ural strength of microfill and hybrid composites. The Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry; 21: 171- 8, 2009.

13. Garoushi S, Lippo VJ, Tezvergil A, Valittu PK. Load bearing capacity of fiber-reinforced and particulate filler composite resin combination. Journal of Dentistry; 34: 179-84, 2006.

14. Fennis WMM, Tezvergil A, Kuijs RH, Lasilla LVJ, Kreulen CM, Creugers NHJ, Valittu PK. In vitro fracture resistance of fiber reinforced cusp-replacing composite restorations. Dental materials; 21: 565-72, 2005.

15. Lassila LVJ, Vallittu PK. The effect of fiber position and polymerization condition on the flexural properties of fiber-reinforced composite. The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice; 5: 14-26, 2004.

16. Ellakwa A, Shortall A, Maraquis P. Influence of fibre position on the flexural properties and strain energy of a fibre-reinforced composite. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation; 30: 679-82, 2003.

17. Lastumaki TM, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK. The semi-interpenetrating polymer network matrix of fiber-reinforced composite and its effect on the surface adhesive properties. Journal of Material Science; 14: 803-9, 2003.

18. Dyer SR, Lassila LV, Jokinen M, Valittu PK. Effect of fiber position and orientation on fracture load of fiber-reinforced composite. Dental Materials; 20: 947-55, 2004.

19. Kanie T, Arikawa H, Fujii K, Ban S. Mechanical properties of woven glass fiber-reinforced composites. Dental Materials Journal; 25: 377-81, 2006.

20. Tezvergil A, Lassila LVJ, Vallittu PK. The effect of fiber orientitation on the polymerization shrinkage strain of fiber-reinforced composites. Dental Materials; 22: 610-6, 2006.

21. Mount GJ, Hume WR. A revised classification of carious lesions by site and size. Quintessence International; 28: 301-3, 1997.

22. Ryge G. Clinical criteria. Int Dent J; 30: 347-58, 1980.

23. Dresch W, Volpato S, Gomes JC, Riberio NR, Reis A, Loguercio AD. Clinical evaluation of a nanofilled composite in posterior teeth: 12-month results. Operative Dentistry; 31: 409-17, 2006.

24. Efes BG, Dörter C, Gömeç Y, Koray F. Two year clinical evaluation of ormocer and nanofill composite with and without a flowable liner. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry; 8: 119-26, 2006.

25. Stefanski S, Van Dijken JWV. Clinical performance of a nanofilled resin composite with and without an intermediary layer of flowable composite: a 2- year evaluation. Clinical Oral Investigations; 10: 119-25, 2010.

26. Sadeghi M, Lynch CD, Shahamat. Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of microhybrid, packable and nanofilled resin composites in Class I restorations. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation; 37: 532-7, 2010.

27. Mahmoud SH, EL-Embaby AE, AbdAllah AM, Hamama HH. Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer, nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorative systems in posterior teeth. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry; 10: 315-22, 2008.

28. Unterbrink GL, Liebenberg WH. The effect of flowable resin composite on microleakage and internal voids in class II composite restorations. Operative Dentistry; 29: 713-9, 2004.

29. Ernst CP, Canbek K, aksogan K, Willershausen B. Two-year clinical performance of packable posterior composite with and without a flowable composite liner. Clin Oral Invest; 7: 129-34, 2003.

30. Curtis AR, Palin WM, Fleming GJP, Shortall ACC et al. The mechanical properties of nanofilled resin-based composites: The impact of dry and wet cyclic pre-loading on bi-axial flexure strength. Dental Materials; 25: 188-97, 2009.