Class II resin composite restorations—tunnel vs. box-only in vitro and in vivo
Tóm tắt
In a combined in vitro/in vivo approach, tunnel vs. box-only resin composite restorations should be evaluated using thermomechanical loading (TML) in vitro and a restrospective clinical trial in vivo. For the in vitro part, box-only and tunnel cavities were prepared in 32 extracted human third molars under simulated intraoral conditions in a phantom head. Specimens were randomly assigned to four groups (n = 8; 16 box-only/16 tunnel) and received bonded resin composite restorations with Amelogen Plus (box A/tunnel A) or lining with Ultraseal and Amelogen plus (box B/tunnel B) both bonded using PQ1 (all Ultradent). Specimens were subjected to a standardized aging protocol, 1-year water storage (WS) followed by TML (100,000 × 50 N; 2500 × + 5/+ 55 °C). Initially and after aging, marginal qualities were evaluated using replicas at × 200 magnification (SEM). For the corresponding in vivo observational study, 229 patients received 673 proximal resin composite restorations. From 371 tunnel restorations, 205 cavities were filled without flowable lining (tunnel A), and 166 tunnels were restored using UltraSeal as lining (tunnel B). A total of 302 teeth received conventional box-only fillings. Restorations were examined according to modified USPHS criteria during routine recalls up to 5 years of clinical service. In vitro, all initial results showed 100% gap-free margins when a flowable lining was used. Tunnels without lining exhibited some proximal shortcomings already before TML and even more pronounced after TML (p < 0.05). After TML, percentages of gap-free margins dropped to 87–90% in enamel with lining and 70–79% without lining (p < 0.05). In vivo, annual failure rates for box-only were 2.2%, for tunnel A 6.1%, and for tunnel B 1.8%, respectively (p < 0.05). Tunnels had significantly more sufficient proximal contact points than box-only restorations (p < 0.05). Flowable lining was highly beneficial for clinical outcome of tunnel-restorations (p < 0.05). With a flowable lining, tunnel restorations proved to be a good alternative to box-only resin composite restorations. Class II tunnel restorations showed to be a viable alternative for box-only restorations, however, only when flowable resin composite was used as adaptation promotor for areas being difficult to access.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Frankenberger R, Reinelt C, Glatthöfer C, Krämer N (2020) Clinical performance and SEM marginal quality of extended posterior resin composite restorations after 12 years. Dent Mater 36:e217–e228
Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BA, Huysmans MC (2010) 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J Dent Res 89:1063–1067
Opdam NJ, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E et al (2014) Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 93:943–949
Pallesen U, van Dijken JW (2015) A randomized controlled 27 years follow up of three resin composites in Class II restorations. J Dent 43:1547–1558
Schmalz G, Galler KM (2017) Biocompatibility of biomaterials – lessions learned and considerations for the design of novel materials. Dent Mater 33:382–393
Frankenberger R, Garcia-Godoy F, Murray PE, Feilzer AJ, Krämer N (2013) Risk aspects of dental restoratives: from amalgam to tooth-colored materials. World J Stomatol 2:1–11
Loguercio AD, Rezende M, Gutierrez MF, Costa TF, Armas-Vega A, Reis AJ (2019) Randomized 36-month follow-up of posterior bulk-filled resin composite restorations. J Dent 85:93–102
De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Van Meerbeek B (2005) A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res 84:118–132
Frankenberger R, Dudek MC, Winter J, Braun A, Krämer N, von Stein-Lausnitz M, Roggendorf MJ (2020) Amalgam alternatives critically evaluated: effect of long-term thermomechanical loading on marginal quality, wear, and fracture behavior. J Adhes Dent 22:107–116
Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Lohbauer U, Nikolaenko SA, Reich SM (2007) Marginal integrity: is the clinical performance of bonded restorations predictable in vitro? J Adhes Dent 9(Suppl 1):107–116
Frankenberger R, Lohbauer U, Roggendorf MJ, Naumann M, Taschner M (2008) Selective enamel etching reconsidered: better than etch-and-rinse and self-etch? J Adhes Dent 10:339–344
Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (2003) Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 28:215–235
Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Cenci MS, Huysmans MC, Wilson NH (2011) Age of failed restorations: a deceptive longevity parameter. J Dent 39:225–230
Palaniappan S, Bharadwaj D, Mattar DL, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P (2011) Nanofilled and microhybrid composite restorations: five-year clinical wear performances. Dent Mater 27:692–700
Chu CH, Mei ML, Cheung C, Nalliah RP (2013) Restoring proximal caries lesions conservatively with tunnel restorations. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 5:43–50
Chu CH, Mei ML, Nalliah RP (2015) A survey of practices of tunnel preparation among dentists who attended the 100th FDI Annual World Dental Congress. J Investig Clin Dent 6:63–68
Ebert J, Frankenberger R, Petschelt A (2012) A novel approach for filling tunnel-prepared teeth with composites of two different consistencies: a case presentation. Quintessence Int 43:93–96
Holst A, Brannstrom M (1998) Restoration of small proximal dentin lesions with the tunnel technique. A 3-year clinical study performed in Public Dental Service clinics. Swed Dent J 22:143–148
Kinomoto Y, Inoue Y, Ebisu S (2004) A two-year comparison of resin-based composite tunnel and Class II restorations in a randomized controlled trial. Am J Dent 17:253–256
Knight GM (1992) The tunnel restoration--nine years of clinical experience using capsulated glass ionomer cements. Case report. Aust Dent J 37:245–251
McComb D (2001) Systematic review of conservative operative caries management strategies. J Dent Educ 65:1154–1161
Nicolaisen S, von der Fehr FR, Lunder N, Thomsen I (2000) Performance of tunnel restorations at 3-6 years. J Dent 28:383–387
Papa J, Wilson PR, Tyas MJ (1992) Tunnel restorations: a review. J Esthet Dent 4 Suppl:4–9
Wiegand A, Attin T (2007) Treatment of proximal caries lesions by tunnel restorations. Dent Mater 23:1461–1467
Ratledge DK, Kidd EA, Treasure ET (2002) The tunnel restoration. Br Dent J 193:501–506
Strand GV, Nordbo H, Leirskar J, von der Fehr FR, Eide GE (2000) Tunnel restorations placed in routine practice and observed for 24 to 54 months. Quintessence Int 31:453–460
Papa J, Cain C, Messer HH (1993) Efficacy of tunnel restorations in the removal of caries. Quintessence Int 24:715–719
Papa J, Cain C, Messer HH, Wilson PR (1993) Tunnel restorations versus class II restorations for small proximal lesions: a comparison of tooth strengths. Quintessence Int 24:93–98
Strand GV, Tveit AB, Gjerdet NR, Eide GE (1995) Marginal ridge strength of teeth with tunnel preparations. Int Dent J 45:117–123
van Waes H, Krejci I, Lutz F (1988) Tunnel restoration. A simple solution or a cuckoo’s egg? Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 98:1104–1110
McLean JW (1992) The clinical use of glass-ionomer cements. Dent Clin N Am 36:693–711
Pyk N, Mejare I (1999) Tunnel restorations in general practice. Influence of some clinical variables on the success rate. Acta Odontol Scand 57:195–200
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP (2008) STROBE initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 61:344–349
Cadenaro M, Marchesi G, Antoniolli F, Davidson C, De Stefano DE, Breschi L (2009) Flowability of composites is no guarantee for contraction stress reduction. Dent Mater 25:649–654
Pongprueksa P, Kuphasuk W, Senawongse P (2007) Effect of elastic cavity wall and occlusal loading on microleakage and dentin bond strength. Oper Dent 32:466–475
Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Pelka M, Petschelt A (1999) Internal adaptation and overhang formation of direct Class II resin composite restorations. Clin Oral Investig 3:208–215