Editorial Type:
Article Category: Research Article
 | 
Online Publication Date: 13 Dec 2022

Clinical Evaluation of Low-shrinkage Bioactive Material Giomer Versus Nanohybrid Resin Composite Restorations: A Two-year Prospective Controlled Clinical Trial

,
,
,
,
, and
Page Range: 10 – 20
DOI: 10.2341/21-155-C
Save
Download PDF

SUMMARY

This study evaluated the clinical performance of low-shrinkage bioactive resin composite compared with a conventional nanohybrid resin composite. A total of 35 patients (18 males, 17 females; mean age: 29±9 years old) received, randomly, 35 pairs of fillings restored with either low-shrinkage bioactive material employing Giomer filler technology (Beautifil II LS, Shofu Inc, Kyoto, Japan) or conventional nanohybrid resin composite (Clearfil Majesty Posterior, Kuraray, Japan) in Class I and Class II cavities. Two operators made all the restorations using the corresponding adhesive resins: FL-Bond II (Shofu Inc) and Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray), according to each manufacturer’s instructions. Two calibrated operators evaluated the restorations two weeks after placement (baseline), at six months, and at one and two years using FDI criteria (Scores 1–5). Data were analyzed using the McNemar test (α=0.05). Mean observation time was 27.4 ± 4.1 months (min=20.8; max=33.7). In both groups, according to FDI criteria, the restorations were mostly rated with best scores (Score 1 or 2) for biological, functional, and optical parameters. For one filling in the group restored with nanohybrid resin composite, a small and localized secondary caries lesion was observed and monitored at the one- and two-year follow-ups. One restoration in the low-shrinkage Giomer restorative group was accepted as a failure due to retention loss. Over the two-year follow-up, both the Giomer and the nanohybrid resin composite restorations’ performance was clinically acceptable.

Copyright: © Operative Dentistry, 2023 2023
Figure 1.
Figure 1.

(A): Clinical photo of tooth number 4 restored with conventional nanohybrid resin composite. (B): Periapical radiography of the same tooth showing a small and localized secondary caries lesion (FDI Score 12.2), which did not require intervention but was monitored at the two-year follow-up.


Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Representative clinical photos of (A): tooth 29 and 30 at baseline, (B): after cavity preparation, (C): immediately after placement of restorations with low-shrinkage Giomer resin composite (tooth 30) and nanohybrid resin composite (tooth 29), and (D): debonding after the two-year follow-up (tooth 30).


Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Representative clinical photos of (A): tooth 30 and 31 at baseline, (B): after cavity preparation, (C): two weeks after placement of restorations with low shrinkage Giomer resin composite (tooth 30) and nanohybrid resin composite (tooth 31), (D): at six-month follow-up, (E): at the one-year follow-up, and (F): at the two-year follow-up.


Contributor Notes

*Corresponding author: Bahçeşehir University School of Dental Medicine, Balmumcu Campus, Gayrettepe Mahallesi, Barbaros Bulvarı, No:153 Beşiktaş, 34349, Istanbul, Turkey; e-mail: tugba.tozakalin@dent.bau.edu.tr
Accepted: 01 Apr 2022
  • Download PDF