Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences) >
Evaluation of wear property of Giomer and universal composite in vivo
Received date: 2020-10-09
Online published: 2021-02-07
Objective: To observe the wear performance of Giomer and universal composite for posterior restorations by 3D laser scan method, in order to guide the material selection in clinic.Methods: In this study,48 patients (108 teeth) were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. All the patients in need of a minimum of 2 Class Ⅰ and/or Class Ⅱ restorations were invited to join the study. The teeth were restored with Giomer (Beautifil Ⅱ, BF) and universal composite (Filtek Z350, Z350) randomly. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6-, 18-, 48-month using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria for clinical performance. The in vivo images and gypsum replicas were taken at each recall. A 3D-laser scanner and Geomagic Studio 12 were used to analyze the wear depth quantitatively. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 20.0.Results: After 4 years, 89.6% patients were recalled. The survival rate of both materials was 95.8% (Kaplan-Meier survival analysis). Seven restorations of the two materials failed due to loss of restoration, bulk fracture, secondary caries and pulp necrosis. The wear patterns of restorations were divided into 2 classes. Pattern Ⅰ: occlusal contact areas showed the deepest and fastest wear depth; pattern Ⅱ: the wear depth was slow and uniform. Both materials showed a rapid wear in the first 6 months. Then the wear rate was decreased. The occlusal wear depth after 4 years were (58±22) μm and (54±16) μm for BF group and Z350 group respectively, which were in accordance with the American Dental Association (ADA) guidelines (wear depth for 3 years <100 μm). No significant differences (P>0.05) were observed between the two groups. Regarding the restorations with wear pattern Ⅰ, the wear depth of BF group was higher than Z350 group at 6- and 48-month (P<0.05), while there was no significant difference between restorations with wear pattern Ⅱ (P>0.05).Conclusion: Within the limitation of the study, after 4 years, the survival rate and wear resistance of Giomer met ADA guidelines for tooth-colored restorative materials for posterior teeth. When the two materials were applied in occlusal contact areas, wear resistance of Giomer was slightly lower than universal composite resin. No significant difference was found when they were applied in none of the occlusal contact areas.
Key words： Composite resins; Dental restoration wear; Imaging; three-dimensional
Hai-li MU , Fu-cong TIAN , Xiao-yan WANG , Xue-jun GAO . Evaluation of wear property of Giomer and universal composite in vivo[J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2021 , 53(1) : 120 -125 . DOI: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2021.01.018
| [1] | Gordan VV, Blaser PK, Watson RE, et al. A clinical evaluation of a giomer restorative system containing surface prereacted glass ionomer filler: results from a 13-year recall examination[J]. J Am Dent Assoc, 2014,145(10):1036-1043. |
| [2] | Manhart J, Chen HY, Hickel R. Clinical evaluation of the poste-rior composite Quixfil in class Ⅰ and Ⅱ cavities: 4-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial[J]. J Adhes Dent, 2010,12(3):237-243. |
| [3] | Oz FD, Ergin E, Canatan S. Twenty-four-month clinical perfor-mance of different universal adhesives in etch-and-rinse, selective etching and self-etch application modes in NCCL: a randomized controlled clinical trial[J]. J Appl Oral Sci, 2019,27:e20180358. |
| [4] | Koc Vural U, Meral E, Ergin E, et al. Twenty-four-month clinical performance of a glass hybrid restorative in non-carious cervical lesions of patients with bruxism: a split-mouth, randomized clinical trial[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2020,24(3):1229-1238. |
| [5] | Hayashi M, Wilson NH. Failure risk of posterior composites with post-operative sensitivity[J]. Oper Dent, 2003,28(6):681-688. |
| [6] | Heintze SD. Clinical relevance of tests on bond strength, microleakage and marginal adaptation[J]. Dent Mater, 2013,29(1):59-84. |
| [7] | Naoum S, Ellakwa A, Martin F, et al. Fluoride release, recharge and mechanical property stability of various fluoride-containing resin composites[J]. Oper Dent, 2011,36(4):422-432. |
| [8] | Ikemura K, Tay FR, Endo T, et al. A review of chemical-approach and ultramorphological studies on the development of fluoride-releasing dental adhesives comprising new pre-reacted glass ionomer (PRG) fillers[J]. Dent Mater J, 2008,27(3):315-339. |
| [9] | Saku S, Kotake H, Scougall-Vilchis RJ, et al. Antibacterial acti-vity of composite resin with glass-ionomer filler particles[J]. Dent Mater J, 2010,29(2):193-198. |
| [10] | Kitagawa H, Miki-Oka S, Mayanagi G, et al. Inhibitory effect of resin composite containing S-PRG filler on Streptococcus mutans glucose metabolism[J]. J Dent, 2018,70:92-96. |
| [11] | Kakuta K, Wonglamsam A, Goto S, et al. Surface textures of composite resins after combined wear test simulating both occlusal wear and brushing wear[J]. Dent Mater J, 2012,31(1):61-67. |
| [12] | Ruivo MA, Pacheco RR, Sebold M, et al. Surface roughness and filler particles characterization of resin-based composites[J]. Microsc Res Tech, 2019,82(10):1756-1767. |
| [13] | Condo R, Cerroni L, Pasquantonio G, et al. A deep morphological characterization and comparison of different dental restorative materials[J]. Biomed Res Int, 2017,2017:7346317. |
| [14] | Heintze SD, Faouzi M, Rousson V, et al. Correlation of wear in vivo and six laboratory wear methods[J]. Dent Mater, 2012,28(9):961-973. |
| [15] | Heintze SD, Ilie N, Hickel R, et al. Laboratory mechanical parameters of composite resins and their relation to fractures and wear in clinical trials: A systematic review[J]. Dent Mater, 2017,33(3):e101-e114. |
| [16] | Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, et al. Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2007,11(1):5-33. |
| [17] | Leinfelder KF, Taylor DF, Barkmeier WW, et al. Quantitative wear measurement of posterior composite resins[J]. Dent Mater, 1986,2(5):198-201. |
| [18] | Mehl A, Gloger W, Kunzelmann KH, et al. A new optical 3-D device for the detection of wear[J]. J Dent Res, 1997,76(11):1799-1807. |
| [19] | Palotie U, Eronen AK, Vehkalahti K, et al. Longevity of 2- and 3-surface restorations in posterior teeth of 25- to 30-year-old attending Public Dental Service: A 13-year observation[J]. J Dent, 2017,62:13-17. |
| [20] | The American Dental Association. ADA acceptance program guidelines: resin based composites for posterior restorations [R]. Chicago: ADA Council on Scientific Affairs, 2001. |
| [21] | Lempel E, Toth A, Fabian T, et al. Retrospective evaluation of posterior direct composite restorations: 10-year findings[J]. Dent Mater, 2015,31(2):115-122. |
| [22] | Demarco FF, Correa MB, Cenci MS, et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials[J]. Dent Mater, 2012,28(1):87-101. |
| [23] | Hewlett ER, Orro ME, Clark GT. Accuracy testing of three-dimensional digitizing systems[J]. Dent Mater, 1992,8(1):49-53. |
| [24] | Thongthammachat S, Moore BK, Barco MT 2nd, et al. Dimensional accuracy of dental casts: influence of tray material, impression material, and time[J]. J Prosthodont, 2002,11(2):98-108. |
| [25] | Palaniappan S, Bharadwaj D, Mattar DL, et al. Three-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance and wear of a nanocomposite versus a hybrid composite[J]. Dent Mater, 2009,25(11):1302-1314. |
| [26] | Palaniappan S, Elsen L, Lijnen I, et al. Nanohybrid and microfilled hybrid versus conventional hybrid composite restorations: 5-year clinical wear performance[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2012,16(1):181-190. |
| [27] | Goldberg AJ, Rydinge E, Santucci EA, et al. Clinical evaluation methods for posterior composite restorations[J]. J Dent Res, 1984,63(12):1387-1391. |
| [28] | da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Cenci MS, Donassollo TA, et al. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings[J]. J Dent, 2006,34(7):427-435. |
| [29] | Wilson NHF, Norman RD. Five-year findings of a multiclinical trial for posterior composite[J]. J Dent, 1991,19(3):153-159. |
| [30] | Satou N, Khan AM, Satou K, et al. In-vitro and in-vivo wear profile of composite resins[J]. J Oral Rehabil, 1992,19(1):31-37. |
| [31] | Salgado VE, Cavalcante LM, Silikas N, et al. The influence of nanoscale inorganic content over optical and surface properties of model composites[J]. J Dent, 2013,41(Suppl 5):e45-53. |
| [32] | Lim BS, Ferracane JL, Condon JR, et al. Effect of filler fraction and filler surface treatment on wear of microfilled composites[J]. Dent Mater, 2002,18(1):1-11. |
| [33] | Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Lassila L. Characterization of fluoride releasing restorative dental materials[J]. Dent Mater J, 2018,37(2):293-300. |
| [34] | Gonulol N, Ozer S, Sen Tunc E. Water sorption, solubility, and color stability of giomer restoratives[J]. J Esthet Restor Dent, 2015,27(5):300-306. |
| [35] | Park CA, Hyun SH, Lee JH, et al. Evaluation of polymerization in fluoride-containing composite resins[J]. J Mater Sci Mater Med, 2007,18(8):1549-1556. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |