Page 36 - WOM_SUMMER_FEB

AcknowledgementsThis study was supported partly by glutathionedepletion with subsequent production of cervical lesions. DentMater 2013;29:e271–80.[44] van
the County of Västerbottenand Saremco AG.r e f e r e n oxygen reactivespecies. J Biomed Mater Res A Dijken JWV. A clincial evaluation of anteriorconventional,
c e s[1] Davidson CL, Feilzer A. Polymerization 2003;66:476–82.[23] Spahl W, Budzikiewicz H, microfiller and hybrid composite resin fillings:a six year
shrinkage andpolymerization shrinkage stress in Geurtsen W. Determination ofleachable components follow up study. Acta Odontol Scand1986;44:357–67.
950
polymer-basedrestorations. J Dent 1997;25:435–40.[2] from four commercial dentalcomposites by gas and [45] Isokangas P, Alanen P, Tiekso J. The clinician´ıs
Loguercio AD, Reis A, Ballester RY. Polymerization liquid chromatography/massspectrometry. J Dent ability toidentify caries risk subjects without saliva
shrinkage:effects of constraint and filling technique in 1998;26:137–45.[24] Nakabayashi N, Watanabe A, tests—a pilotstudy. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol
compositerestorations. Dent Mater 2004;20:236–43.[3] Gendusa NJ. Dentin adhesionof modified 4-META/ 1993;21:8–10.[46] Seppä L, Hausen H, Pöllänen L,
Table 6 – Published annual failure rates of the in Umeå and Copenhagen tested restorative systems in Class II restorations after 6 year follow up periods. AFR = annual Davidson CL, de Gee AJ. Relaxation of MMA-TBB resin: function of HEMA.Dent Mater Helasharju K, Karkkainen S.Past caries recording made
failure rate. polymerizationcontraction stresses by flow in dental 1992;8:259–64.[25] Nakaoki Y, Nikaido T, Pereira PN, in Public Dental Clinics aspredictors of caries
Classification Restorative system Year of publica-tion Failures at 6 years (%) AFR (%) Manufacturer composites. J Dent Res1984;63:146–8.[4] Ferracane Inokoshi S, Tagami J.Dimensional changes of prevalence in early adolescence.Community Dent Oral
(study follow up years) (reference no) JL, Mitchem JC. Relationship between demineralized dentin treated withHEMA primers. Dent Epidemiol 1989;17:277–81.[47] Siegel S.
compositecontraction stress and leakage in Class V Mater 2000;16:441–6.[26] Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert Nonparametric statistics. New York: McGraw-HillBook
Resin composite system low els/cmf 2016 11.4% 1.9 Saremco AG, Rebstein,
shrinkage, HEMA/TEGDMA free Switzerland cavities. Am J Dent2003;16:239–43.[5] Lindberg A, van J, De Munck J, Peumans M,Yoshida Y, Poitevin A, et al. Company, Inc.; 1956. p. 166–72.[48] Stanislawski L,
els/AdheSE (6 years) 20.0% 3.3% Ivoclar/Vivadent, Schaan, Dijken JWV, Hörstedt P. Interfacialadaptation of Class II Systematic review of thechemical composition of Daniau X, Lauti A, Goldberg M. Factorsresponsible for
Liechtenstein polyacid-modified resincomposites/resin composite contemporary dental adhesives.Biomaterials pulp cell cytotoxicity induced byresin-modified glass
Resin composite, low InTen-S/Excite 2015 [10] 12.8% 2.1% Ivoclar/Vivadent, Schaan, laminate restorations in vivo.Acta Odontol Scand 2007;28:3757–85.[27] Van Landuyt KL, De Munck J, ionomer cements. J Biomed Mater Res1999;48:277–
shrinkage Liechtenstein 2000;58:77–84.[6] Bergenholtz G. Evidence for Snauwaert J, Coutinho E,Poitevin A, Yoshida Y, et al. 88.[49] Mine A, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin
Resin composite, Point 4/Optibond Solo Plus 14.3% 2.4% Kerr Corp, Orange, USA
microhybrid (15 years) dental bacterial causation of adversepulpal responses in Monomer-solvent phaseseparation in one-step self-etch A, Kuboki T,Yoshida Y, et al. Bonding effectiveness and
Resin composite, nanofilled Ceram X/Xeno III 2015 [52] 10.1% 1.7% DeTrey/Dentsply, Konstanz, resin-based dental restorations. Crit RevOral Biol Med adhesives. J Dent Res2005;84:183–8.[28] Ikeda T, interfacialcharacterization of a TEGDMA/HEMA-free
Ceram X/Excite (8 years) 5.8% 1.0% Germany 2000;11:467–80.[7] Fleming GJP, Khan S, Afzai O, DeMunck J, Shirai K, Hikita K, Inoue S, Sano H, et al. three-step etch &rinse adhesive. J Dent 2008;36:767–
Resin composite, nanofilled Tetric Evo Ceram 2014 [53] 13.6% 2.3% Ivoclar/Vivadent, Schaan, Palin WM, Burke FJT.Investigation of polymerisation Effect of air-drying on the strength of HEMA-rich 73.[50] Braga RR, Ballester RY, Ferracane JL. Factors
highly filled hybrid Tetric Ceram (10 years) 10.2% 1.7% Liechtenstein materials shrinkage strain, associated cuspal movement and versusHEMA-free one-step adhesives. Dent Mater involved in thedevelopment of polymerization shrinkage
Resin composite, hybrid Spectrum TPH/Prime&Bond 2014 [55] 15,0% 2.5% Dentsply DeTrey, Konstanz. microleakage of MOD cavitiesrestored incrementally 2008;24:1316–23.[29] De Munck J, Ermis RB, Koshiro stress inresin-composites: a systematic review. Dent
(8 years)
Resin composite, hybrid Gradia Direct 2013 [56] 8.5% 1.4% GC, Tokyo, Japan 3 3 with resin-based composite using anLED light curing K, Inoue S, Van Landuyt K,Lambrechts P, et al. NaOCl Mater2005;21:962–70.[51] Malhotra N, Kundabala M,
Posterior/G-Bond unit. J Dent 2006;35:97–103.[8] Versluis A, Tantbirojn degradation of a HEMA-freeall-in-one adhesive bonded Acharya S. Strategies to overcomepolymerization
Resin composite, Giomer Beautifil/FLbond (6 years) 17.7% 3.0 Shofu, Kyoto, Japan ( 2 0 1 7 ) D, Douglas WH. Distribution oftransient properties to enamel and dentin followingtwo air-blowing shrinkage—Materials and techniques. Areview. Dent
Resin composite, highly filled Tetric Ceram/Excite 2011 [57] 14.0% 2.3% Ivoclar/Vivadent, Schaan, during polymerization of alight-initiated restorative techniques. J Dent 2007;35:74–83.[30] Chang H-H, Update 2010;37:2–10.[52] van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U.
hybrid small-particle Tetric Ceram/Tetric 12.3% 2.1% Liechtenstein composite. Dent Mater2004;20:543–53.[9] Versluis A, Guo M-K, Kasten FH, Chang M-C, Huang G-F,Wang Y-L, Eight-year randomized clinicalevaluation of Class II
flow/Excite (7 years) 944–953 Tantbirojn D, Pintado MR, DeLong R, DouglasWH. et al. Stimulation of glutathione 6 depletion, nano-hybrid resin compositerestorations bonded with a
Resin composite, fiber Alert/Bond-1 2006 [58] 12.8% 2.1% Jeneric/Pentron, Wallingford, Residual shrinkage stress distributions in molars ROSproduction and cell cycle arrest of dental pulp cells one-step self-etch or a two-stepetch-and-rinse
reinforced CT, USA
Nulite/NS Bond Universal 25.0% 4.2% Nulite Systems International aftercomposite restoration. Dent Mater 2004;20:554– andgingival epithelial cells by HEMA. adhesive. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19:1371–9.[53] van
Adhesive (6 years) PTY Ltd, Hornsby, Australia 64.[10] van Dijken JWV, Lindberg A. A 15-year Biomaterials2005;26:745–53.[31] Paranjpe A, Dijken JWV, Pallesen U. A randomized
Ca-aluminate cement Doxadent (3 years) 2005 [59] 21% after 3 years 7.0% Doxa, Uppsala, Sweden randomizedcontrolled study of a reduced shrinkage Bordador LCF, Wang M-Y, Hume WR, Jewett A.Resin 10-yearprospective follow up of Class II nano-hybrid
Resin composite (sandwich) Z100/Vitremer (7 years) 2004 [60] 19% 3.2% 3M, St Paul, MN, USA stress resincomposite in Class II cavities. Dent Mater monomer 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) is andconventional hybrid resin composite restorations. J
Resin composite smart Ariston (3 years) 2002 [61] 26% after 3 years 8.7% Ivoclar/Vivadent, Schaan, 2015;31:1150–8.[11] Burke FJT, Crisp RJ, James A, apotent inducer of apoptotic cell death in human and AdhesDent 2014;16:585–92.[54] van Dijken JWV.
material Liechtenstein
Resin composite inlay Brilliant/Brilliant duo 2000 [54] 11.5% 1.9% Brilliant DI, Coltène AG, Mackenzie L, Pal A, Sands P,et al. Two year clinical mousecells. J Dent Res 2005;84:172–7.[32] Schweikl Direct resin composite inlays/onlays: an11 year
cement Altstätten, Switzerland evaluation of a low-shrink resincomposite material in UK H, Schmalz G, Rackebrandt K. The mutagenicactivity of follow-up. J Dent 2000;28:299–306.[55] Pallesen U,
Resin composite Fullfil/GC lining/enamel 14.7% 2.5% DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany general dental practices. DentMater 2011;27:622–30. unpolymerized resin monomers in van Dijken JWV, Hallonsten A-L, Halken J,Höigaard R. A
bond (11 years) [12] Magno MB, Nascimento GCR, da Rocha YSP, Salmonellatyphimurium and V79 cells. Mutat. Res prospective 8-year follow-up of posterior
Ribeiro BPG,Loretto SC, Maia LC. Silorane-based 1998;415:119–30.[33] Schweikl H, Schmalz G, Spruss resincomposite restorations in permanent teeth of
composite resinrestorations are not better than T. The induction ofmicronuclei in vitro by unpolymerized children andadolescents in Public Dental Health Service:
conventional composites—ameta-analysis of clinical resin monomers. JDent Res 2001;80:1615–20.[34] reasons forreplacement. Clin Oral Investig
studies. J Adhes Dent2016;18:375–86.[13] Ferracane Schweikl H, Spagnuolo G, Schmalz G. Genetic and 2014;18:819–27.[56] van Dijken JWV. A 6-year
JL. Elution of leachable components fromcomposites. J cellulartoxicology of dental resin monomers. J Dent prospective evaluation of aone-step HEMA-free self
composite systems containing low systems with traditional monomers. percentage of participants with Oral Rehabil 1994;21:441–52.[14] Michelsen VB, Moe Res2006;85:870–7.[35] Samuelsen JT, Hole JA, Becher etching adhesive in Class IIrestorations. Dent Mater
molecular weight monomers, is by This shows that it is very well possible parafunctional habits.But also by the G, Ström MB, Lygre H. Quantitativeanalysis of TEGDMA R, Karlsson S, Morisbak E,Dahl JE. HEMA reduces cell 2013;29:1116–22.[57] van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U.
observing clinical studies with the to exchange both HEMA and inclusion of a high frequency extense and HEMA eluted into saliva from twodental composites proliferation and inducesapoptosis in vitro. Dent Mater Clinical performance of a hybridresin composite with
same study design and patient TEGDMA from the resin composite “amalgam cavities” in molar teeth, by use of GC/MS and tailor-made internalstandards. 2008;24:134–40.[36] Kanerva, et al. Occupational and without an intermediate layer offlowable resin
allegic contact dermatitis from2-hydroxyethyl
Dent Mater 2008;24:724–31.[15] Blomgren, et al.
composite: a 7-year evaluation. Dent
selection. Table 6 presents posterior system without changing the clinical which increase the total fracture risk. Adverse reactions in the oral mucosaassociated with methacrylate and ethylene glycoldimethacrylate in a Mater2011;27:150–6.[58] van Dijken JWV,
resin composite studies performed by durability. However,the good clinical Wear was not observed to be a clinical anterior composite restorations. J OralPathol Med modified acrylic structural adhesive.Contact Dermatitis Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K. Fiber-reinforcedpackable resin
our research groups in Umeå and results were only observed when els problem, despite suggestions in the 1996;25:311–3.[16] Geurtsen W, Spahl W, Leyhausen 1995;33:84–9.[37] Kanerva L, Jolanki R, Estlander T. composites in Class II cavities. J Dent2006;34:763–9.
[59] van Dijken JWV, Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K. A
10 years of patch testingwith the (meth)acrylate series.
G. Residualmonomer/additive release and variability in
Copenhagen and published in was combined with the cmf adhesive literature that wear may be a cytotoxicity oflight-curing glass-ionomer cements and Contact Dermatitis1997;37:255–8.[38] Goon AT, three-yearfollow-up of posterior cavities restored with
international reviewer based dental system. The resin composite els did significant mode of failure in larger compomers. J DentRes 1998;77:2012–9.[17] Geurtsen Isaksson M, Zimerson E, Goh CL, Bruze M. Doxadent. SwedDent J 2005;29:43–9.[60] Andersson-
journals, of which the majority was not shown optimal biomechanical restorations, especially in patientswith W, Spahl W, Muller K, Leyhausen G. Aqueousextracts Contactallergy to (meth)acrylates in the dental series in Wenckert I, van Dijken JWV, Kieri C. Thedurability of
from dentin adhesives contain cytotoxic chemicals.J
extensive Class II open-sandwich restorationswith a
southernSweden: simultaneous positive patch test
41
64
published during the last 10 years properties in earlier in vitro studies , bruxing and clenching habits . This Biomed Mater Res 1999;48:772–7.[18] Geurtsen W, reaction patternsand possible screening allergens. resin-modified glass ionomer cement after six years.Am
10,52–61 . Studies investigating Class but combining the resin composite confirms findings from recent reviews Leyhausen G. Chemical–biological interactionof the Contact Dermatitis2006;55:219–26.[39] Kanerva L, J Dent 2004;17:43–50.[61] van Dijken JWV. Three-year
IIrestorations-only, where their 6 year with the HEMA/TEGDMA free of clinical studies published during resin monomer triethyleneglycoldimetacrylate(TEGDMA). Alenko K, Estlander T, Jolanki R, Lahtinen A,Savela E. performance of a calcium-,fluoride- and hydroxyl ions
releasing resin composite. ActaOdontol Scand
J Dent Res 2001;80:2046–50.[19] Kaga M, Noda M,
Statistics on occupational contact dermatitis from(meth)
failure rates and annual failure rates adhesive resulted in good durability. thelast years [62,63] . It can be Ferracane JL, Nakamura W, Oguchi H, SanoH. The in acrylates in dental personal. Contact 2002;60:155–9.[62] Ástvaldsdóttir A, Dagerhamn J,
are shown. The results of two new This adhesive has shown excellent concluded that Class II resin vitro cytotoxicity of eluates from dentin bondingresins Dermatitis2000;42:175–6.[40] Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer van Dijken JWV,Naimi-Akbar A, Sandborgh-Englund G,
restorative materials with early high clinical results in Class VNCCL lesions composite restorations performed with and their effect on tyrosine phosphorylation of AJ. Polymerization shrinkage andcontraction stress of Tranæus S, et al.Longevity of posterior resin composite
L929cells. Dent Mater 2001;17:333–9.[20] Goldberg
dental resin composites. Dent Mater2005;21:1150–7.
restorations inadults. A systematic review. J Dent
catastrophic failure rates are included, 41 .The main reason for failure was the new TEGDMA/HEMA-free low M. In vitro and in vivo studies on the toxicity ofdental [41] Ilie N, Hickel R. Investigations on mechanical 2015;43:934–54.[63] Opdam NJM, van de Sande FH,
indicating the need of shorter follow material fracture followedby recurrent shrinkage resin composite system resin components: a review. Clin Oral behavior ofdental composites. Clin Oral Investig Bronkhorst E, Cenci MS,Bottenberg P, Pallesen U, et al.
up times for new materials. The 88.6% caries. This is in accordance with showed good durability similar to Investig2008;12:1–8.[21] Engelmann J, Leyhausen G, 2009;13:427–38.[42] Reichl F-X, Löhle J, Seiss M, Longevity of posteriorcomposite restorations: a
Furche S, Shehata MM, Hickel R,et al. Elution of
Leibfritz D, Geurtsen W. Effectsof TEGDMA on the
systematic review andmeta-analysis. J Dent Res
success rate observed after 6 years recent findings in most of the clinical hybrid or nanofiller resin composite intracellular glutathione concentration ofhuman gingival TEGDMA and HEMA from polymerizedresin-based 2014;93:943–9.[64] Ferracane JL. Is the wear of
with the TEGDMA/HEMA-free resin follow up 62,63 . The high relative systems containing HEMA, TEGDMA fibroblasts. J Biomed Mater Sci2002;63:746–51.[22] bonding systems. Dent Mater 2012;28:1120–5.[43] dental composites still a clinicalconcern? Is there still a
composite system is in line with those frequency fractures observed may be or other low molecular weight Stanislawski L, Lefeuvre M, Bourd K, Soheili-Majd van Dijken JWV. A randomized controlled 5-year need for in vitro wear simulatingdevice. Dent Mater
2006;22:689–92.
prospectivestudy of two HEMAfree adhesives, a 1-step
E,Goldberg M, Perianin A. TEGDMA-induced toxicity in
of highly acceptable resin composite explained partly by the high monomers, with high effectiveness. humanfibroblasts is associated with early and drastic self etching and a3-step etch-and-rinse, in non-carious
34 WORD OF MOUTH SUMMER 18/19 WORD OF MOUTH SUMMER 18/19 35