Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2021; 15(04): 755-767
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1724155
Review Article

Microleakage of Direct Restorations-Comparisonbetween Bulk-Fill and Traditional Composite Resins:Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Francesca Zotti
1   Department of Surgical Sciences, Paediatrics and Gynaecology, University of Verona Policlinico G. B. Rossi, Verona, Italy
,
Edoardo Falavigna
1   Department of Surgical Sciences, Paediatrics and Gynaecology, University of Verona Policlinico G. B. Rossi, Verona, Italy
,
Giorgia Capocasale 
1   Department of Surgical Sciences, Paediatrics and Gynaecology, University of Verona Policlinico G. B. Rossi, Verona, Italy
,
Daniele De Santis
1   Department of Surgical Sciences, Paediatrics and Gynaecology, University of Verona Policlinico G. B. Rossi, Verona, Italy
,
Massimo Albanese
1   Department of Surgical Sciences, Paediatrics and Gynaecology, University of Verona Policlinico G. B. Rossi, Verona, Italy
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Since the bulk-fill composites were produced, there was a progressive diffusion of their use for direct conservative treatment in posterior teeth. Their chemical structure increases the depth of cure and decreases the polymerization contraction; in this manner, bulk-fill composites can be placed in 4 mm single layers and the treatment times are considerably reduced. However, aesthetic and mechanical properties and impact on microleakage of bulk-fill resins are still unclear.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the risk of microleakage of direct posterior restorations made of bulk-fill versus conventional composite resins.

Researches were performed on PubMed and Scopus databases. Eligible in vivo studies, published since 2006, were reviewed. Outcomes of marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, and recurrent caries were considered to conduct the systematic review and meta-analysis. Secondary data were examined to implement additional analysis and assess the risk of bias.

Eight randomized clinical trials were analyzed, involving 778 direct restorations. The summary of RCTs led to significant but inconsistent results; the marginal discoloration and recurrent caries were found to be improved respectively by 5.1 and 1.4%, whereas the marginal adaptation was reduced of 6.5%. Secondary analyses revealed that follow-up periods, the adhesive system used and the class of carious lesions evaluated are confounding factors, and they result in a risk of bias across studies.

Bulk-fill composites are innovative materials for conservative dentistry and they can be used to reduce treatment steps and duration of operative times. There are insufficient data to explore the relationship between bulk-fill composites and microleakage and further investigations are needed.

Keywords

bulk-fill composites - microleakage - marginal discoloration - marginal adaptation - recurrent caries - direct restorations


Publication History

Article published online:
27 August 2021

© 2021. European Journal of Dentistry. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Ziskind D, Avivi-Arber L, Haramati O, Hirschfeld Z. Amalgam alternatives–micro-leakage evaluation of clinical procedures. Part I: direct composite/composite inlay/ceramic inlay. J Oral Rehabil 1998; 25 (06) 443-447
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Oglakci B, Kazak M, Donmez N, Dalkilic EE, Koymen SS. The use of a liner under different bulk-fill resin composites: 3D GAP formation analysis by x-ray microcomputed tomography. J Appl Oral Sci 2019; 28: e20190042
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ballal NV. Microleakage of composite resin restorations. Aust Dent J 2008; 53 (04) 369 author reply 369–370
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Going RE. Microleakage around dental restorations: a summarizing review. J Am Dent Assoc 1972; 84 (06) 1349-1357
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ceci M, Viola M, Rattalino D, Beltrami R, Colombo M, Poggio C. Discoloration of different esthetic restorative materials: a spectrophotometric evaluation. Eur J Dent 2017; 11 (02) 149-156
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kaisarly D, El GezawiM, Keβler A, Rösch P, Kunzelmann KH. Shrinkage vectors in flowable bulk-fill and conventional composites: bulk versus incremental application. Clin Oral Investig 2021; 25 (03) 1127-1139 doi: DOI: 10.1007/s00784-020-03412-3.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bin NoohAN, Nahedh HA, AlRefeai M, Alkhudhairy F. The effect of irradiance on the degree of conversion and volumetric polymerization shrinkage of different bulk-fill resin-based composites: an in vitro study. Eur J Dent 2021; 15 (02) 312-319 doi: DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1721236.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Benetti AR, Havndrup-Pedersen C, Honoré D, Pedersen MK, Pallesen U. Bulk-fill resin composites: polymerization contraction, depth of cure, and gap formation. Oper Dent 2015; 40 (02) 190-200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Malchiodi L, Zotti F, Moro T. De Santis D, Albanese M. Clinical and esthetical evaluation of 79 lithium disilicate multilayered anterior veneers with a medium follow-up of 3 years. Eur J Dent 2019; 13 (04) 581-588
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Chesterman J, Jowett A, Gallacher A, Nixon P. Bulk-fill resin-based composite restorative materials: a review. Br Dent J 2017; 222 (05) 337-344
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Tardem C, Albuquerque EG, Lopes LS. et al Clinical time and postoperative sensitivity after use of bulk-fill (syringe and capsule) vs. incremental filling composites: a randomized clinical trial. Braz Oral Res 2019; 33 (00) e089
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015; 4 (01) 1 doi: DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Haidich AB. Meta-analysis in medical research. Hippokratia 2010; 14 (Suppl. 01) 29-37
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Sofan E, Sofan A, Palaia G, Tenore G, Romeo U, Migliau G. Classification review of dental adhesive systems: from the IV generation to the universal type. Ann Stomatol (Roma) 2017; 8 (01) 1-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Bohaty BS, Ye Q, Misra A, Sene F, Spencer P. Posterior composite restoration update: focus on factors influencing form and function. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2013; 5: 33-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 van JWV Dijken, Pallesen U. Randomized 3-year clinical evaluation of Class I and II posterior resin restorations placed with a bulk-fill resin composite and a one-step self-etching adhesive. J Adhes Dent 2015; 17 (01) 81-88
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Alkurdi RM, Abboud SA. Clinical evaluation of class II composite: resin restorations placed by two different bulk-fill techniques. J Orofac Sci 2016; 8: 34-39
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 18 van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U. Posterior bulk-filled resin composite restorations: a 5-year randomized controlled clinical study. J Dent 2016; 51: 29-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Colak H, Tokay U, Uzgur R, Hamidi MM, Ercan E. A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial of one nano-hybrid and one high-viscosity bulk-fill composite restorative systems in class II cavities: 12 months results. Niger J Clin Pract 2017; 20 (07) 822-831
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Yazici AR, Antonson SA, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E. Thirty-six-month clinical comparison of bulk fill and nanofill composite restorations. Oper Dent 2017; 42 (05) 478-485
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Cox CF, Keall CL, Keall HJ, Ostro E, Bergenholtz G. Biocompatibility of surface-sealed dental materials against exposed pulps. J Prosthet Dent 1987; 57 (01) 1-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Heck K, Manhart J, Hickel R, Diegritz C. Clinical evaluation of the bulk fill composite QuiXfil in molar class I and II cavities: 10-year results of a RCT. Dent Mater 2018; 34 (06) e138-e147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 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. J Appl Oral Sci 2019; 27: e20180678
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Balkaya H, Arslan S. A two-year clinical comparison of three different restorative materials in class II cavities. Oper Dent 2020; 45 (01) E32-E42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Colak H, Ercan E, Hamidi MM. Shear bond strength of bulk-fill and nano-restorative materials to dentin. Eur J Dent 2016; 10 (01) 40-45
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Nawareg MM, Zidan AZ, Zhou J, Chiba A, Tagami J, Pashley DH. Adhesive sealing of dentin surfaces in vitro: a review. Am J Dent 2015; 28 (06) 321-332
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y, Mine A, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL. State of the art of self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater 2011; 27 (01) 17-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Olegário IC, Hesse D, Bönecker M. et al Effectiveness of conventional treatment using bulk-fill composite resin versus atraumatic restorative treatments in primary and permanent dentition: a pragmatic randomized clinical trial. BMC Oral Health 2016; 17 (01) 34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 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 (Basel) 2020; 12 (08) 1786
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Veloso SRM, Lemos CAA, de Moraes SLD, do Egito Vasconcelos BC, Pellizzer EP, de Melo Monteiro GQ. Clinical performance of bulk-fill and conventional resin composite restorations in posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig 2019; 23 (01) 221-233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Ebaya MM, Ali AI, Mahmoud SH. Evaluation of marginal adaptation and microleakage of three glass ionomer-based class v restorations: in vitro study. Eur J Dent 2019; 13 (04) 599-606
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Ruggeri A. Cadenaro M, Di Lenarda R, De Stefano Dorigo E. Dental adhesion review: aging and stability of the bonded interface. Dent Mater 2008; 24 (01) 90-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Askar H, Brouwer F, Lehmensiek M, Paris S, Schwendicke F. The association between loading of restorations and secondary caries lesions is moderated by the restoration material elasticity. J Dent 2017; 58: 74-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Mjör IA, Toffenetti F. Secondary caries: a literature review with case reports. Quintessence Int 2000; 31 (03) 165-179
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Dablanca-Blanco AB, Blanco-Carrión J, Martín-Biedma B, Varela-Patiño P, Bello-Castro A, Castelo-Baz P. Management of large class II lesions in molars: how to restore and when to perform surgical crown lengthening?. Restor Dent Endod 2017; 42 (03) 240-252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Lopes GC, Baratieri LN, de Andrada MA, Vieira LC. Dental adhesion: present state of the art and future perspectives. Quintessence Int 2002; 33 (03) 213-224
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Manuja N, Nagpal R, Pandit IK. Dental adhesion: mechanism, techniques and durability. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2012; 36 (03) 223-234
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Relhan N, Ponnappa KC, Relhan A, Jain A, Gupta P. An in-vitro comparison of micro leakage between two posterior composites restored with different layering techniques using two different LED modes. J Clin Diagn Res 2015; 9 (05) ZC78-ZC81
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Poggio C, Chiesa M, Scribante A, Mekler J, Colombo M. Microleakage in class II composite restorations with margins below the CEJ: in vitro evaluation of different restorative techniques. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2013; 18 (05) e793-e798
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Patel MU, Punia SK, Bhat S. et al An in vitro evaluation of microleakage of posterior teeth restored with amalgam, composite and zirconomer - a stereomicroscopic study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015; 9 (07) ZC65-ZC67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Wahab FK, Shaini FJ, Morgano SM. The effect of thermocycling on microleakage of several commercially available composite Class V restorations in vitro. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 90 (02) 168-174
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Rosatto CM, Bicalho AA, Veríssimo C. et al Mechanical properties, shrinkage stress, cuspal strain and fracture resistance of molars restored with bulk-fill composites and incremental filling technique. J Dent 2015; 43 (12) 1519-1528
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Bellinaso MD, Soares FZM, Rocha RO. Do bulk-fill resins decrease the restorative time in posterior teeth? A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. J Investig Clin Dent 2019; 10 (04) e12463
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar