Article Data

  • Views 350
  • Dowloads 155

Original Research

Open Access

Bulk-flow composites in paediatric dentistry: long term survival of posterior restorations. A retrospective study

  • Patrizia Lucchi1
  • Sergio Mazzoleni1
  • Roberta Gaia Parcianello2
  • Roberto Gatto3
  • Antonio Gracco1
  • Edoardo Stellini1
  • Francesco Saverio Ludovichetti1,*,

1Department of Neurosciences—Dentistry Section, University of Padua, 35100 Padova, Italy

2Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Milano University, 20126 Milano, Italy

3Life, Health and Environmental Sciences Department, University of L'Aquila, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy

DOI: 10.22514/jocpd.2024.084 Vol.48,Issue 4,July 2024 pp.108-114

Submitted: 21 November 2023 Accepted: 17 January 2024

Published: 03 July 2024

*Corresponding Author(s): Francesco Saverio Ludovichetti E-mail: francesco.ludovichetti@unipd.it

Abstract

Dental decay is a prevalent bacterial disease affecting a significant percentage of children globally. In paediatric dentistry, various materials are available for restoring deciduous teeth, addressing both functional and aesthetic concerns. However, paediatric dentists encounter challenges related to patient compliance, limited working time, and material handling. This study aims to observe the survival rate of bulk-fill composite restorations in paediatric patients over a five-year follow-up. A total of 198 patients aged 0 to 12 years underwent 673 class II restorations on deciduous first molars (1M) and second molars (2M). All restorations were conducted performed by 1 Pediatric DDS resident students from the Paediatric Dentistry Department (Padova University), utilizing using different isolation techniques. Bulk-fill composite restorations were evaluated over a five-year follow-up, and data were collected by a single investigator. After five years, 177 patients and 611 restorations were assessed. The retention rate was higher in primary second molars than in first molars, with fewer marginal dyschromies and less formation of secondary caries. The overall failure rate was higher in primary first molars and primary lower second molars. Bulk-fill composites demonstrated significantly positive performance in terms of retention, maintenance, and marginal dyschromies. Bulk-fill composites are promising materials of choice in paediatric dentistry due to their easy handling and favorable properties. Further research is necessary to compare high and low viscosity bulk-fill composites and assess the impact of different variables on restoration success.


Keywords

Dental decay; Paediatric dentistry; BFC; Restoration techniques


Cite and Share

Patrizia Lucchi,Sergio Mazzoleni,Roberta Gaia Parcianello,Roberto Gatto,Antonio Gracco,Edoardo Stellini,Francesco Saverio Ludovichetti. Bulk-flow composites in paediatric dentistry: long term survival of posterior restorations. A retrospective study. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2024. 48(4);108-114.

References

[1] Uribe SE, Innes N, Maldupa I. The global prevalence of early childhood caries: a systematic review with meta-analysis using the who diagnostic criteria. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2021; 31: 817–830.

[2] American Academy of Paediatric Dentistry. Paediatric restorative dentistry. The reference manual of paediatric dentistry. American Academy of Paediatric Dentistry: Chicago. 2020.

[3] Dhar V, Hsu K, Coll J, Ginsberg E, Ball B, Chhibber S, et al. Evidence-based update of pediatric dental restorative procedures: dental materials. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2015; 39: 303–310.

[4] Frencken JE, Leal SC. The correct use of the ART approach. Journal of Applied Oral Science. 2010; 18: 1–4.

[5] Campagna P, Pinto LT, Lenzi TL, Ardenghi TM, de Oliveira Rocha R, Oliveira MDM. Survival and associated risk factors of composite restorations in children with early childhood caries: a clinical retrospective study. Pediatric Dentistry. 2018; 40: 210–214.

[6] Ludovichetti FS, Stellini E, Signoriello AG, DI Fiore A, Gracco A, Mazzoleni S. Zirconia vs. stainless steel pediatric crowns: a literature review. Minerva Dental and Oral Science. 2021; 70: 112–118.

[7] Durán Ojeda G, Henríquez Gutiérrez I, Tisi JP, Báez Rosales A. A novel technique for bulk-fill resin-based restorations: achieving function and aesthetics in posterior teeth. Case Reports in Dentistry. 2017; 2017: 9408591.

[8] Cidreira Boaro LC, Pereira Lopes D, de Souza ASC, Lie Nakano E, Ayala Perez MD, Pfeifer CS, et al. Clinical performance and chemical-physical properties of bulk fill composites resin—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dental Materials. 2019; 35: e249–e264.

[9] Ludovichetti FS, Lucchi P, Zambon G, Pezzato L, Bertolini R, Zerman N, et al. Depth of cure, hardness, roughness and filler dimension of bulk-fill flowable, conventional flowable and high-strength universal injectable composites: an in vitro study. Nanomaterials. 2022; 12: 1951.

[10] Brännström M, Mattsson B, Torstenson B. Materials techniques for lining composite resin restorations: a critical ap-proach. Journal of Dentistry. 1991; 19: 71–79.

[11] Vouvoudi EC. Overviews on the progress of flowable dental polymeric composites: their composition, polymerization process, flowability and radiopacity aspects. Polymers. 2022; 14: 4182.

[12] Hirata R, Kabbach W, de Andrade OS, Bonfante EA, Giannini M, Coelho PG. Bulk fill composites: an anatomic sculpting technique. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. 2015; 27: 335–343.

[13] Van Ende A, De Munck J, Lise DP, Van Meerbeek B. Bulk-fill composites: a review of the current literature. The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry. 2017; 19: 95–109.

[14] Clara J, Bourgeois D, Muller-Bolla M. DMF from WHO basic methods to ICDAS II advanced methods: a systematic review of literature. Odontostomatol Trop. 2012; 35: 5–11.

[15] Macey R, Walsh T, Riley P, Hogan R, Glenny AM, Worthington HV, et al. Transillumination and optical coher-ence tomography for the detection and diagnosis of enamel caries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2021; 1: CD013855.

[16] Miao C, Yang X, Wong MC, Zou J, Zhou X, Li C, et al. Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2021; 5: CD009858.

[17] Alhareky MS, Mermelstein D, Finkelman M, Alhumaid J, Loo C. Efficiency and patient satisfaction with the Isolite sys-tem versus rubber dam for sealant placement in pediatric patients. Pediatric Dentistry. 2014; 36: 400–404.

[18] Assunção CM, Goulart M, Essvein TE, Santos NMD, Erhardt MCG, Lussi A, et al. Effect of erosive challenges on deciduous teeth undergoing restorative procedures with different adhesive protocols—an in vitro study. Journal of Ap-plied Oral Science. 2018; 26: e20170053.

[19] Francio LA, Silva FE, Valerio CS, Cardoso CAEA, Jansen WC, Manzi FR. Accuracy of various imaging methods for detecting misfit at the tooth-restoration interface in posterior teeth. Imaging Science in Dentistry. 2018; 48: 87–96.

[20] Nagarathna C, Shakuntala B, Jaiganesh I. Efficiency and reliability of thermal and electrical tests to evaluate pulp status in primary teeth with assessment of anxiety levels in children. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2015; 39: 447–451.

[21] Chisini LA, Collares K, Cademartori MG, de Oliveira LJC, Conde MCM, Demarco FF, et al. Restorations in primary teeth: a systematic review on survival and reasons for failures. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2018; 28: 123–139.

[22] Hoffmann L, Neuerer C, Heck K, Kunzelmann KH. Bulk-fill composites compared to a nanohybrid composite in class-ii cavities—a two-year follow-up study. The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry. 2021; 23: 389–396.

[23] Yazici AR, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E, Karahan S, Antonson SA. Six-year clinical evaluation of bulk-fill and nanofill resin com-posite restorations. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2022; 26: 417–426.

[24] Endo Hoshino IA, Fraga Briso AL, Bueno Esteves LM, Dos Santos PH, Meira Borghi Frascino S, Fagundes TC. Ran-domized prospective clinical trial of class II restorations using flowable bulk-fill resin composites: 4-year follow-up. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2022; 26: 5697–5710.

[25] Correia AMO, Jurema ALB, Bresciani E, Caneppele TMF. Effects of lesion size on the 30-month clinical performance of restorations with bulk fill and a regular nanofilled resin composite in noncarious cervical lesions. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2023; 27: 3083–3093.

[26] Sekundo C, Fazeli S, Felten A, Schoilew K, Wolff D, Frese C. A randomized clinical split-mouth trial of a bulk-fill and a nanohybrid composite restorative in class II cavities: three-year results. Dental Materials. 2022; 38: 759–768.

[27] Arbildo-Vega HI, Lapinska B, Panda S, Lamas-Lara C, Khan AS, Lukomska-Szymanska M. Clinical effectiveness of bulk-fill and conventional resin composite restorations: systematic review and meta-analysis. Polymers. 2020; 12: 1786.

[28] Uzel İ, Aykut-Yetkiner A, Ersin N, Ertuğrul F, Atila E, Özcan M. Evaluation of glass-ionomer versus bulk-fill resin com-posite: a two-year randomized clinical study. Materials. 2022; 15: 7271.

[29] Balkaya H, Arslan S, Pala K. A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results. Journal of Applied Oral Science. 2019; 27: e20180678.

[30] Bayazıt EÖ, Başeren M, Meral E. Clinical comparison of different glass ionomer-based restoratives and a bulk-fill resin composite in Class I cavities: a 48-month randomized split-mouth controlled trial. Journal of Dentistry. 2023; 131: 104473.

[31] Opdam NJ, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E, Cenci MS, Bottenberg P, Pallesen U, et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations. Journal of Dental Research. 2014; 93: 943–949.

[32] Pires CW, Pedrotti D, Lenzi TL, Soares FZM, Ziegelmann PK, Rocha RO. Is there a best conventional material for restor-ing posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis. Brazilian Oral Research. 2018; 32: e10.

[33] Heintze SD, Loguercio AD, Hanzen TA, Reis A, Rousson V. Clinical efficacy of resin-based direct posterior restorations and glass-ionomer restorations—an updated meta-analysis of clinical outcome parameters. Dental Materials Journal. 2022; 38: e109–e135.



Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Scopus: CiteScore 1.8 (2023) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Submission Turnaround Time

Conferences

Top