Comparative Analysis of Conventional Compound Resins and Bulk Fill Resins
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21270/archi.v12i1.5552Keywords:
Composite Resin, Restorative Dentistry, Dental MaterialsAbstract
Introduction: During the photopolymerization of the resin, there may be contraction stresses that allow the appearance of microcracks / microfractures, post-operative sensitivity, superficial wear, secondary caries, among others. In order to find the aesthetics and mechanical and biological properties of a long-lived restoration, the composite resins called Bulk-Fill emerged, with the proposal of insertion in a single increment of up to 4 or 5 mm. Objective: To analyze studies that compared Bulk fill resin with a conventional composite resin, in order to obtain information about the characteristics and properties of both materials and which is the best option on the market today. Materials and methods: The literary survey carried out in this literature review was based on the search for scientific articles that were published in a 5-year period (between 2016 and 2021), indexed in the following databases: Medical Publications (PubMed), Scientific Electronic Library Online (Scielo) and Virtual Health Library (VHL). Results: 20 studies were selected, nine were (45%) systematic reviews, eight (40%) randomized clinical studies and three (15%) in vitro studies. Conclusion: The scientific evidence that emerged from this review shows that the clinical efficacy of bulk-filll resin is similar to conventional resin, regardless of the type of restoration (class I, II or non-carious cervical lesions), the type of restored tooth (primary teeth or permanent), but in relation to adequate and biological parameters and clinical time, a bulk-fill resin is slightly superior. More studies need to be carried out to obtain more information on which material is better today.
Downloads
References
Gadonski AP, Feiber M, Almeida L, Naufel FS, Schmitt VL. Avaliação do efeito cromático em resinas compostas nanoparticuladas submetidas a solução café. Rev Odontol UNESP. 2018;47(3):137-42.
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(4).
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;7(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 (Basel). 2020;12(8).
Veloso SRM, Lemos CAA, Moraes SLD, Vasconcelos BCE, Pellizzer EP, Monteiro GQM. Clinical performance of bulk-fill and conventional resin composite restorations in posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta- analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23(1):221-33.
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(7):822-31.
Gerula-Szymańska A, Kaczor K, Lewusz-Butkiewicz K, Nowicka A. Marginal integrity of flowable and packable bulk fill materials used for class II restorations -A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. Dent Mater J. 2020;39(3):335-344.
Van dijken, JW, Pallesen U. Posterior bulk-filled resin composite restorations: A 5-year randomized controlled clinical study. J Dent. 2016;51(1):29-35.
Bayraktar Y, Ercan E, Hamidi MM, Çolak H. One-year clinical evaluation of different types of bulk-fill composites. J Investig Clin Dent. 2017;8(2).
Yazici AR, Antonson SA, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E. Thirty-Six-Month Clinical Comparison of Bulk Fill and Nanofill Composite Restorations. Operative Dentistry. 2017;42(5):478-85.
Duarte JCL, Costa AR, Veríssimo C, Duarte RW, Calabrez Filho S, Spohr AM et al. Interfacial Stress and Bond Strength of Bulk-Fill or Conventional Composite Resins to Dentin in Class II Restorations. Braz. Dent. J. 2020;31(5):532-39.
Ehlers V, Gran K, Callaway A, Azrak B, Ernst CP. One-year Clinical Performance of Flowable Bulk-fill Composite vs Conventional Compomer Restorations in Primary Molars. J Adhes Dent. 2019;21(3):247-54.
Canali GD, Ignácio SA, Rached RN, Souza EM. One-year clinical evaluation of bulk-fill flowable vs. regular nanofilled composite in non-carious cervical lesions. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;23(2):889-97.
Correia A, Jurema ALB, Andrade MR, Borges ALS, Bresciane E, Caneppele TMF. Clinical Evaluation of Noncarious Cervical Lesions of Different Extensions Restored With Bulk-fill or Conventional Resin Composite: Preliminary Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial. Oper Dent. 2020;45(1):11-20.
Cidreira-Boaro LC, Lopes DP, Souza ASC, Nakano EL, Perez MDA, Pfeifer CS et al. Clinical performance and chemical-physical properties of bulk fill composites resina systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent Mater. 2019;35(10):249-64.
Trevisan TC, Júnior Gusson M, Bortolatto JF, Pigossi S, Oliveira Júnior OB, Ricci WA. Color stability of conventional and bulk fill composite resins. RGO - Revista Gaúcha de Odontologia. 2018;66(1);15-20.
Rauber GB, Bernardon JK, Vieira LCC, Maia HP, Horn F, Roesler CRM. In Vitro Fatigue Resistance of Teeth Restored With Bulk Fill versus Conventional Composite Resin. Brazilian Dental Journal. 2016;27(4):452-57.
Reis AF, Vestphal M, Amaral RC, Rodrigues JA, Roulet JF, Roscoe MG. Efficiency of polymerization of bulk-fill composite resins: a systematic review. Braz Oral Res. 2017;31(1).
Tavares BG, França FMG, Basting RT, Turssi CP, Amaral FLB. Effect of bleaching protocols on surface roughness and color change of high- and low-viscosity bulk- fill composite resins. Acta Odontol Latinoam. 2020;33(2):59-68.
Kruly PC, Giannini N, Pascotto RC, Tokubu LM, Suga USG, Marques ACR et al. Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: Low polymerization shrinkage resin in comparison to methacrylate composite resin. Plos One. 2018;13(2).
