Toward a Clinically Reliable Class II Resin Composite Restoration: A Cross-Sectional Study into the Current Clinical Practice among Dentists in Saudi Arabia

AlSheikh, Rasha; Almulhim, Khalid S.; Abdulkader, Moamen; Haridy, Rasha; Bugshan, Amr S.; Aldamanhouri, Rand; Elgezawi, Moataz

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2691376

International Journal of Dentistry

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusions Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 2691376 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2691376

Toward a Clinically Reliable Class II Resin Composite Restoration: A Cross-Sectional Study into the Current Clinical Practice among Dentists in Saudi Arabia

Rasha AlSheikh,¹Khalid S. Almulhim,¹Moamen Abdulkader,²Rasha Haridy,^3,4Amr S. Bugshan,⁵Rand Aldamanhouri,⁶and Moataz Elgezawi¹

Academic Editor: Luca Testarelli

Received13 Mar 2022

Accepted11 Jul 2022

Published02 Aug 2022

Abstract

Objective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the current clinical practice of general dentists in Saudi Arabia in restoring class II cavities using direct resin composites and to set evidence-based practice recommendations of concern. Methods. An online survey formed of 20 questions and classified into four domains was developed. 500 dentists in 5 Saudi provinces were invited to join the survey anonymously and voluntarily using poster announcements and e-mail invitations. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze participants’ responses. Results. 343 responses were received. Dentists in Saudi Arabia vary in their clinical practices and techniques of insertion of resin composite in class II cavities. 67% of participants use cotton rolls for isolating the field while 32% use rubber dam isolation. 33% and 28% of respondents use circumferential matrix (Tofflemire) and AutoMatrix, respectively. Fracture, followed by recurrent caries and open proximal contacts, was the received main reason of failure of class II direct resin composite restorations. Conclusion. Diversity of class II resin composite practices exists among dentists in Saudi Arabia. For ensuring optimum quality outcomes and high standards of restorative dentistry healthcare, several dentists in Saudi Arabia need to reconsider their clinical practice and modify their clinical procedures of direct class II resin composites. Several evidence-based practice guidelines are recommended to dentists in this article to improve their practice and enhance the clinical reliability and longevity of class II direct resin composite restorations.

1. Introduction

Direct resin composites are the first choice and most widely used direct restoration of posterior teeth with a good survival rate and reported annual failure rate of 1–3% [1]. Long-term clinical reliability of a biomechanically and esthetically satisfactory restoration is a core focus of interest of dentists and patients [2]. Ongoing advancement in resin composite materials, adhesive technologies, and light curing devices and application methodologies has been coupled with increased patients’ knowledge and expectations of restoring teeth with optimum esthetic qualities, established biocompatibility, and superior functional effectiveness at a reasonable cost with shortest possible time needed for fulfilment of the restoration. Nevertheless, resin composite has limitations and demerits that need thoughtful consideration during its use. Polymerization shrinkage, technique sensitivity, difficulty in building up effective proximal contacts, and long-term [3] biodegradation [4] are among the reported clinical challenges of resin composite restorations that necessitate meticulous attention to all clinical procedures of cavity preparation and resin composite application [5] as well as effectively performing the postoperative care [6] and maintenance [7, 8].

Several resin composite materials have been recently introduced to the market to improve clinical performance and patient satisfaction [9–11]. Bulk-fill, self-adhesive, antibacterial, and self-healing resin composites are among the modern formulations. Innovations in resin composite organic matrix, filler technology, coupling agents, initiator system, and tinting agents have enabled fabricating esthetically superior and bifunctionally remarkable quality resin composite restoration even in posterior teeth where esthetics might be considered of less clinical significance than in anterior teeth [12–16].

Among all hard tooth lesions, class II cavities present a demanding clinical situation and require adequate knowledge and clinical skills [17]. Restoring tight proximal contacts has been extensively reported among the challenges of class II direct resin composite restorations [18–21]. On the other hand, adaptation at the cervical margins of class II resin composites, where inadequacy or lack of enamel for effective etching is frequently encountered, is highly demanding and obligating considerate procedures.

Several application techniques and matrix systems were suggested to ensure tight proximal contacts and allow restoring physiological contours and embrasures [22] which is mandatory for maintaining healthy gingival and periodontal tissues and avoiding wedging of food between teeth [23, 24].

Among the most famous matrix systems are the sectional matrix, circumferential matrix, and AutoMatrix systems. Among the clinical insertion techniques, incremental insertion, bulk-fill insertion, and firstly building a proximal wall of composite have been widely used. Moreover, the use of a flowable liner of resin composite has been advocated among the recommended techniques of insertion [8]. On the other hand, several light curing techniques have been suggested to adequately cure resin composite, particularly in class II situations where adequately curing the deepest zone of resin composite away from the light curing tip is questionable. In addition to occlusal light curing, three-directional curing, use of light reflecting wedges, and bulk-fill composites have been suggested.

The FDI Commission Project 2–95 has outlined three factors influencing the quality of dental restorations. These included material related factors which are related to each restorative material’s properties, merits, and demerits. Furthermore, patient related factors including the socioeconomical factors, the specific nature of the oral environmental conditions, and the oral hygienic status were reported as significant factors influencing the effectiveness and longevity of dental restorations. Nevertheless, it reported the operator related factors as fundamental factors in determining the quality and clinical performance of dental restorations. These included procedural excellence variations, judgement, and perceptual variations among operators in different aspects comprising cavity design, material selection, and manipulation [25].

Delivery of evidence-based patient-centered oral and dental healthcare has been a fundamental standard of all healthcare bodies and distinguished medical and dental educational and treatment centers that seek to excel and perfect the offered clinical dental services [26–28]. Therefore, this study was designed to analyze the current clinical practice of dentists in Saudi Arabia in class II resin composite restorations and to set several recommendations to improve this practice.

2. Materials and Methods

An online survey of 20 questions divided into four domains was developed. The targeted population was 500 dentists appointed in general governmental hospitals in 5 Saudi provinces, middle, north, west, east, and south. The three largest governmental hospitals in each of the included Saudi cities, according to the number of available dental clinics in each, were selected. University and private hospitals and dental centers were not included in the study. To test the consistency and validity of the questions, ten senior professors and/or consultants of restorative dentistry were invited to evaluate the study questionnaire categorizing respective answers as irrelevant, of low relevance, relevant, or highly relevant. All experts’ responses were relevant or highly relevant to all questions. Poster announcements were provided in the selected hospitals inviting dentists to join the online survey. Furthermore, e-mail addresses of the targeted dentists were collected anonymously through personal contacts without revealing any of their personal data. E-mail invitations were sent to them to join the online survey. Invitations briefly described the survey objectives and mentioned the affiliating institutes. Participants were assured that joining the survey is voluntary and anonymous and they are free to skip any question or leave the survey at any time. A contact e-mail was available in the invitation for any inquiry concerning the survey.

An ethical approval of Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University IRB Committee was obtained before starting the survey. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the obtained responses.

3. Results

Table 1 summarizes the domains, questions, and respective responses of participants in numbers and percentages for each respective answer option.

The greatest participation was obtained from east, west, and south provinces. There was a lack of general agreement between participants regarding their usual practice or main procedure followed during resin composite insertion. 37% of respondents were 31–39 years old while 28% were 23–30 years old. On the other hand, 12% were above 50 years old and 23% between 40 and 49 years old. Most of the responders were male taking up 68% of the total surveys, and 32% were female. The participants were mainly from the eastern province, accounting for 37% of the participants, followed by the western and southern province, each accounting for 22%. The northern and middle province had the least numbers of surveys with 10% and 8%, respectively.

The total years of practice of dentistry varied between the responders; 33% of the responders have been practicing for more than 15 years, while 24% have been practicing for less than 5 years. Another 24% have been practicing for 5–10 years, and 19% for 10–15 years. 41% of the responders perform less than 10 new class II composite restorations on average per week, and 39% perform more than 10 restorations, while 20% perform more than 20 restorations. A large portion (54%) of the responders repair or remake less than 5 faulty class II composite restorations on average per week. On the other hand, 26% repair more than 10, and 20% repair more than 5 restorations per week.

Based on the responder’s personal procedural preferences, the most popular (67%) choice of isolation used in class II composite restoration was cotton rolls while 32% use rubber dam isolation. The remaining 1% of the responders did not use any form of isolation. The types of composites used by the responders for class II were micro-hybrid (42%) and nano-hybrid (39%). 4% used other types of composites, while 14% did not know what type of composite they use. 55% used the conventional incremental technique for restoring class II, while 37% used the flowable bulk-fill followed by conventional composite, and 8% used bulk-fill only. The light curing method mostly used (86%) was light emission diode (LED), and 4% used the quarts. 10% of the responders did not know what type of light curing method they use. The responders mainly used three-directional curing method in their class II with a percentage of 72%, and the remaining 27% used the occlusal direction. 87% of the responders chose not to heat their resin composite before insertion, while only 12% chose to heat it. 69% of the responders answered that they started by a layer of flowable composite on the gingival seat before progressing to the successive resin composite increments; on the other hand, 30% did not start with a flowable composite. The adhesive systems used for class II resin composite by the responders were etch-and-rinse (51%), selective etch (15%), and self-etch technique (14%). The rest of the responders, accounting for 19%, use any available system they have. The most popular types of matrix systems used for restoring class II with resin composite by the responders were Tofflemire, sectional matrix, and AutoMatrix with percentages of 33%, 29%, and 28%, respectively. Less commonly used matrix systems were Triodent V3 matrix (7%) and FenderMate matrix (2%). 77% have answered that they first built a proximal wall of composite against the matrix before proceeding to subsequent increment of composite, while 21% did not.

Based on the responders’ feedback about old composites, 51% claimed that, upon using floss to test the proximal contacts, they were satisfied with the techniques they use for producing tight contacts, and 17% were very satisfied. However, 23% answered with “kind of” and 7% with “not at all” satisfied. 36% of the responders did not take bitewings to check the quality of class II, while 35% did sometimes, and 28% always did. The most common failures of class II encountered by the responders in their clinic that necessitate remake or repair were fracture 32%, recurrent caries (26%), pain (19%), open contact (17%), and discoloration (6%). When asked about the incidence of post-restorative hypersensitivity reported by their patients in the first week after class II restoration, 46% responded with “rare” and 32% with “infrequent.” However, 19% said “sometimes,” and 3% said they frequently encountered reported incidence of postoperative hypersensitivity.

4. Discussion

Evidence-based clinical practice confirms the clinical reliability of class II direct resin composite restorations. Extensive systematic reviews, meta-analyses, clinical trials, and observations that generally employ modified USPHC and/or FDI criteria of clinically ranking restorations [29–31] have been used to document the long-term effectiveness of these restorations [1]. In a recent clinical trial, resin composite class II restorations showed excellent performance with no need for repair or remake after 24-month interval using the FDI criteria, with evident patients’ satisfaction irrespective of scarce cases of mild hypersensitivity and less tight proximal contact. In another clinical study, class II resin composites performed well regardless of the resin composite material [32].

Dentists related factors that can influence the quality of outcomes of class II resin composite restorations are extensive and cover variations in all restorative management steps and restorative treatment decisions. In all clinical situations, it is the responsibility of the dentist to undergo proper diagnosis and execute appropriate cavity preparation design features. Furthermore, he/she should be able to select the most suitable resin composite material and adhesive approach and employ effective light curing procedures as well as sound resin composite insertion techniques. Moreover, he/she should ensure adequate finishing and polishing methods [8, 25, 33].

The scope of current cross-sectional study outlines the clinical practices and procedures followed by dentists in Saudi Arabia during restoring class II cavities using direct resin composites. This encompasses variations in their preferred resin composite materials, light curing methods, insertion techniques, and finishing and polishing procedures. Critical factors in rubber dam isolation, adhesive bonding approaches, light curing devices, insertion techniques, and matrix systems are principally addressed.

The obtained responses of the first domain of demographic factors showed that most of participants were less than 40 years of age, which reflects the significance of the survey topics to young dental practitioners. The greatest contribution of dentists was from Eastern and Western provinces as dentists there might have been encouraged by the academic institutes to which investigators are affiliated and their wider and more convenient advertisement of the survey in participating hospitals. The finding that the percentage of participation of dentists decreases with greater number of new class II resin composite weekly restorations and with the increased clinical years of experience is in line with a pervious similar survey performed in England [25]. This might be related to the greater number of younger generation and less experienced dentists appointed in the selected hospitals. Moreover, it might reflect higher level of satisfaction of more experienced dental practitioners with their current practice of class II resin composites. Additionally, it can indicate their broader awareness of the different complicated and challenging aspects of class II resin composites as well as the different procedural protocols.

Among the main concerns of restorative dentistry practice is failure of restorations. It has been reported that 50% of resin composite restorations fail in 10 years. It has been estimated that about 60% of restorative dentistry practice time on average is spent in repair or remake of faulty resin composites [34]. In a novel 11-year observation period retrospective study, the one-year failure rate of resin composite in posterior teeth treated by undergraduate students, indicated by the need for re-intervention, was 5.73%. At five years, it was 16.7%, while in ten-year period, it was 18.74% [35].

The received answers of respondents of this study confirm that remake and/or repair of faulty class II resin composites constitute a regular part of clinical practices of class II resin composites, which necessitates adequate analysis of the potential reasons of failure and setting a number of recommendations for improving the standard of restorative dental healthcare [35].

Our findings that 67% of participants use cotton rolls for field isolation, while 23% use rubber dam isolation, and 1% do not isolate the field during resin composite insertion in class II cavities raise concerns. The importance of rubber dam isolation during restoring teeth with resin composite is well documented. A former clinical study reported that at 10 years of clinical service, the behavior of restorations of posterior teeth with resin composite placed under well-controlled, effective isolation with cotton rolls and aspiration was not significantly different from that of restorations placed using rubber dam isolation. However, this same study argued that the use of high suction aspiration in combination with cotton rolls was essential [36]. Considerable modern evidence confirmed the importance of rubber dam isolation for high-quality class II resin composite restorations [37]. While many reports indicate that proper rubber dam isolation is mandatory for a high-quality resin composite restoration [8], others recommended using it whenever possible [30].

In a previous survey studying the clinical practices of posterior resin composites among general dental practitioners in England, 68% (173 dentists) of the respondents reported that they never use rubber dam while 94% declared they routinely use cotton roll isolation. In another survey in Dental Practice-Based Research Network, 64% of the participating dentists reported that they do not use rubber dam with any restoration [38].

A basic aspect in the practice of resin composite restorations is the selection of effective, durable, and clinically reliable resin adhesive bonding approach. Etch-and-rinse approach is considered as a gold standard approach where phosphoric acid is used to etch both enamel and dentin parts of the preparation before water rinsing and dryness prior to the application of a bonding resin. Alternatively, self-etch resin bonding approach, which is easier and less time consuming, facilitates synchronized etching and resin impregnation of the dentin collagen which might confirm complete penetration of the exposed collagen layer of dentin [7]. To make bonding to enamel more effective, selective etching is used to firstly etch enamel parts of the preparation using phosphoric acid before implementing self-etching approach. Our findings that 51% of responding dentists use the etch-and-rinse approach while 14% use self-etch approach, indicate that most of dentists in Saudi Arabia are attentive to the evidence-based recommendations. On the other hand, the 19% of respondents who may use any available adhesive boding technique in class II resin composites might need to reconsider their protocol [9, 31].

The declaration made by 86% of dentists taking part in the current survey about using LED blue light curing for curing resin composites in class II cavities, versus 4% using Quartz Tungsten Halogen light and 10% who reported they did not know the type of light curing they use, is interesting. While it fits the literature data indicating that most dentists around the world employ LED light as a satisfactory curing light for curing resin composites [39], it highlights the significance of confirming the awareness among dentists in Saudi Arabia of the significance of the employed curing light.

Our findings that 42% and 39% of respondents use micro-hybrid and nano-hybrid resin composite materials in class II cavities, respectively, indicate that most dentists in Saudi Arabia are in line with previous general recommendations of a meta-analysis for improving the quality of resin composite direct class II restorations [31]. At the same time, the 4% and 14% of respondents that either use another category of resin composite or do not know the kind of resin composite they use for restoring class II cavities need to improve awareness and modify their clinical practice.

The current survey data showing that 55% and 37% of participants use the conventional incremental technique of insertion and the insertion of an initial flowable resin composite increment while 8% use bulk-fill composite, are different from those obtained from a previous similar study. This previous study was done in only one area of Saudi Arabia where the participating dentists reported horizontal and oblique layering as the mere methods of insertion of resin composite in posterior teeth [40].

The collected feedback that, upon insertion of resin composite in class II cavities, 69% use an initial layer of flowable composite conforms with previous recommendations aiming to increase the adaptation at the critical cervical margin of class II cavities [3–5, 41]. Moreover, the 87% of participating dentists who do not preheat resin composite before insertion are not consistent with the findings that preheating resin composite reduces marginal gaps [42].

The received responses that 72% of dentists perform three-directional curing occlusally, buccally, and lingually while 27% use occlusal light curing, reflect the awareness among the majority of dentists in Saudi Arabia. This agrees with evidence highlighting the significance of the depth of curing light penetration, cavity configuration, and intervening tooth substance for the adequacy of light curing and the degree of conversion for the clinical performance of class II resin composite [39].

A recent study reviewed the available in vitro and in vivo evidence to set a best strategy for insertion of resin composites in class II cavities. Incemental insertion, bulk insertion, firstly inserting a flowable layer, and preheating of composite were among the searched techniques. The study showed that the literature does not recommend a specific insertion technique of resin composite in class II cavities. Furthermore, it has drawn a clinical significance, indicating that regardless of the technique of insertion employed, appropriate and meticulous attention during insertion and light curing of resin composite has the most significant influence on the quality of the final class II resin composite restoration [43, 44].

Our results that 33%, 28%, 29%, 7%, and 2% of participants use circumferential matrix, AutoMatrix, sectional matrix, or its modified forms of Triodent V3 or FenderMate systems, respectively, might raise the importance of drawing dentists’ attention to the effectiveness of the employed matrix system. To ensure a tight proximal contact of class II resin composite restorations, the use of sectional matrix has been advocated by many in vitro and in vivo investigations [9, 45].

The finding that 69% of participants firstly build a wall of resin composite against the used matrix before progressing to subsequent increment insertion of resin composite is riveting since it is in harmony with many recent recommendations for ensuring effective, tight, and physiological proximal contact. Nevertheless, it demonstrates the importance of enhancing the awareness of 21% of dentists in Saudi Arabia who do not use it [6].

The frequency of forms of failure of class II resin composite restorations encountered by the participating dentists of the current study is in line with previous similar surveys in different locations around the world [1, 30]. It is captivating that 46% and 32% of responses reported that incidence of post-restoration hypersensitivity in the first week after restoring class II cavities with direct resin composite was rare and infrequent, respectively. This might reflect that most of dentists in Saudi Arabia follow adequate protocols in management of class II lesions restored with direct resin composites including careful diagnosis, selection of materials, cavity preparation, and resin composite insertion techniques. Findings about material insertion indicate that many dentists in Saudi Arabia pay meticulous attention during the insertion and curing of direct resin composite in class II cavities to control the adverse consequences of polymerization shrinkage of resin composite where post-restoration hypersensitivity comes first in the list [2–4, 7, 46, 47]. On the other hand, it appears that the 19% and 3% of participants who reported first week post-restoration hypersensitivity in 20% and more than 50% of patients after class II resin composite restorations need to start corresponding appropriate practice modification.

This study was a cross-sectional study that was conducted over a period of four months, from August to December 2020. During that period the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic evolved with all the restrictions that affected the clinical practice as well as dental education [46, 48]. This might have affected the size of the targeted population at the time of study design as well as the level of respondents to the survey. A greater population size and higher level of respondents could have provided a broader study outcome. Another limitation of the current study is related to the included general governmental hospitals that grant dental treatments to patients completely free of charge. This can have an influence on the practice relative to the amount of flow of patients seeking free dental treatments versus time and facilities availability. Adding private dental centers and clinics as well as university clinics and hospitals to the study might have influenced the study outcomes and included general dentists exposed to socioeconomically different patients and distinctive facilities.

5. Conclusions

Under the circumstances of the current investigation and considering all its limitations, the following conclusions could be drawn:(1)Dentists in Saudi Arabia are not consistently following the same protocol of directly inserting resin composites in class II cavities including materials selection, field isolation, insertion technique, light curing, and matrix system.(2)While many dentists in Saudi Arabia use satisfactory evidence-based practices, some need to reconsider their clinical practice and protocols followed during resin composite insertion in class II cavities.

Data Availability

Data are available upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors confirm that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

The authors have read and approved the manuscript.

References

N. J. Opdam, F. H. van de Sande, E. Bronkhorst et al., “Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Journal of Dental Research, vol. 93, no. 10, pp. 943–949, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
M. F. El Gezawi and F. A. Al-Harbi, “Reliability of bonded MOD restorations in maxillary premolars: microleakage and cusp fracture resistance,” Acta Stomatologica Croatica, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 31–42, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
F. Al-Harbi, D. Kaisarly, A. Michna, A. ArRejaie, D. Bader, and M. El Gezawi, “Cervical interfacial bonding effectiveness of class II bulk versus incremental fill resin composite restorations,” Operative Dentistry, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 622–635, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. El Gezawi, D. Kaisarly, H. Al-Saleh, A. ArRejaie, F. Al-Harbi, and K. Kunzelmann, “Degradation potential of bulk versus incrementally applied and indirect composites: color, microhardness, and surface deterioration,” Operative Dentistry, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. e195–e208, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Al-Harbi, D. Kaisarly, D. Bader, and M. El Gezawi, “Marginal integrity of bulk versus incremental fill class II composite restorations,” Operative Dentistry, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 146–156, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Kaisarly, R. Langenegger, F. Litzenburger et al., “Effects of application method on shrinkage vectors and volumetric shrinkage of bulk-fill composites in class-II restorations,” Dental Materials, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 79–93, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. El Gezawi, R. Haridy, E. Abo Elazm, F. Al-Harbi, M. Zouch, and D. Kaisarly, “Microtensile bond strength, 4-point bending and nanoleakage of resin-dentin interfaces: effects of two matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors,” Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, vol. 78, pp. 206–213, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Peumans, G. Politano, and B. Van Meerbeek, “Effective protocol for daily high-quality direct posterior composite restorations. Cavity preparation and design,” The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 581–596, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. L. Ferracane, “Resin composite--state of the art,” Dental Materials, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 29–38, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Zhou, S. Liu, X. Zhou et al., “Modifying adhesive materials to improve the longevity of resinous restorations,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 20, no. 3, p. 723, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. J. Anusavice, Phillips Science of Dental Material, Elsevier Science, St. Louis, MO, USA, 2013.
A. Poitevin, J. De Munck, A. Van Ende et al., “Bonding effectiveness of self-adhesive composites to dentin and enamel,” Dental Materials, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 221–230, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Kobayashi, M. Nakajima, K. Furusawa, A. Tichy, K. Hosaka, and J. Tagami, “Color adjustment potential of single-shade resin composite to various-shade human teeth: effect of structural color phenomenon,” Dental Materials Journal, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 1033–1040, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Huyang, A. E. Debertin, and J. Sun, “Design and development of self-healing dental composites,” Materials & Design, vol. 94, pp. 295–302, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Pratap, R. K. Gupta, B. Bhardwaj, and M. Nag, “Resin based restorative dental materials: characteristics and future perspectives,” Japanese Dental Science Review, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 126–138, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Beyth, S. Farah, A. J. Domb, and E. I. Weiss, “Antibacterial dental resin composites,” Reactive and Functional Polymers, vol. 75, pp. 81–88, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. J. Christensen, “Remaining challenges with Class II resin-based composite restorations,” The Journal of the American Dental Association, vol. 138, no. 11, pp. 1487–1489, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. d. C. Cardoso, A. R. B. de Oliveira, L. V. Lopes, S. C. Cabral, and M. B. R. G. Oliveira, “In vivo evaluation of different techniques for establishment of proximal contacts in posterior resin composite restorations,” Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 12–16, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
V. Alonso, M. Caserio, and I. L. Darriba, “Use of transparent tips for obtaining tight proximal contacts in direct class II composite resin restorations,” Operative Dentistry, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 446–451, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. A. El-Badrawy, B. W. Leung, O. El-Mowafy, J. H. Rubo, and M. H. Rubo, “Evaluation of proximal contacts of posterior composite restorations with 4 placement techniques,” Journal (Canadian Dental Association), vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 162–167, 2003.
View at: Google Scholar
B. A. Loomans, N. Opdam, F. Roeters, E. Bronkhorst, and A. Plasschaert, “The long-term effect of a composite resin restoration on proximal contact tightness,” Journal of Dentistry, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 104–108, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Kampouropoulos, C. Paximada, M. Loukidis, and A. Kakaboura, “The influence of matrix type on the proximal contact in Class II resin composite restorations,” Operative Dentistry, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 454–462, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. El-Shamy, H. Sonbul, N. Alturkestani et al., “Proximal contact tightness of class II bulk-fill composite resin restorations: an in vitro study,” Dental Materials Journal, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 96–100, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. M. Owens and J. G. Phebus, “An evidence-based review of dental matrix systems,” General Dentistry, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 64–70, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Jokstad, S. Bayne, U. Blunck, M. Tyas, and N. Wilson, “Quality of dental restorations FDI commission project 2–95,” International Dental Journal, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 117–158, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. L. Engle, D. C. Mohr, S. K. Holmes et al., “Evidence-based practice and patient-centered care: doing both well,” Health Care Management Review, vol. 46, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
R. R. Weaver, “Reconciling evidence-based medicine and patient-centred care: defining evidence-based inputs to patient-centred decisions,” Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1076–1080, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Elgezawi, K. Hassan, A. Alagl et al., “Complexity of comprehensive care treatments in undergraduate dental programs: the benefits of observing and assisting experienced faculty members,” The Saudi Dental Journal, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 161–166, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Kubo, “Longevity of resin composite restorations,” Japanese Dental Science Review, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 43–55, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. D. Heintze and V. Rousson, “Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations-a meta-analysis,” The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 407–431, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. I. Arbildo-Vega, B. Lapinska, S. Panda, C. Lamas-Lara, A. S. Khan, and M. Lukomska-Szymanska, “Clinical effectiveness of bulk-fill and conventional resin composite restorations: systematic review and meta-analysis,” Polymers (Basel), vol. 12, no. 8, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
F. B. Pazinatto, R. Gionordoli Neto, L. Wang, J. Mondelli, R. F. L. Mondelli, and M. FdL. Navarro, “56-month clinical performance of Class I and II resin composite restorations,” Journal of Applied Oral Science, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 323–328, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. D. Jackson, “Class II composite resin restorations: faster, easier, predictable,” British Dental Journal, vol. 221, no. 10, pp. 623–631, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. C. Barcellos, V. M. Miyazaki Santos, L. N. Niu, D. H. Pashley, F. R. Tay, and C. R. Pucci, “Repair of composites: effect of laser and different surface treatments,” International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, vol. 59, pp. 1–6, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Wong, I. R. Blum, C. Louca, M. Sparrius, and K. Wanyonyi, “A retrospective clinical study on the survival of posterior composite restorations in a primary care dental outreach setting over 11years,” Journal of Dentistry, vol. 106, Article ID 103586, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Raskin, J. C. Setcos, J. Vreven, and N. H. F. Wilson, “Influence of the isolation method on the 10-year clinical behaviour of posterior resin composite restorations,” Clinical Oral Investigations, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 148–152, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. van der Vyver and M. Vorster, “New clinical innovations to ensure predictable Class II posterior composite resin restorations,” International Dentistry—African Edition, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 14–36, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
G. H. Gilbert, M. S. Litaker, D. J. Pihlstrom, C. W. Amundson, and V. V. Gordan, “Rubber dam use during routine operative dentistry procedures: findings from the Dental PBRN,” Operative Dentistry, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 491–499, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. M. AlShaafi, “Factors affecting polymerization of resin-based composites: a literature review,” The Saudi Dental Journal, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 48–58, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. M. Awad, M. Alradan, N. Alshalan et al., “Placement of posterior composite restorations: a cross-sectional study of dental practitioners in Al-kharj, Saudi Arabia,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 18, no. 23, Article ID 12408, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. S. Malmström, M. Schlueter, T. Roach, and M. E. Moss, “Effect of thickness of flowable resins on marginal leakage in class II composite restorations,” Operative Dentistry, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 373–380, 2002.
View at: Google Scholar
F. Darabi, R. Tayefeh-Davalloo, S. M. Tavangar, F. Naser-Alavi, and M. Boorboo-Shirazi, “The effect of composite resin preheating on marginal adaptation of class II restorations,” Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. e682–e687, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. L. Ferracane and N. C. Lawson, “Probing the hierarchy of evidence to identify the best strategy for placing class II dental composite restorations using current materials,” Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 39–50, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Kaisarly, M. ElGezawi, R. Haridy et al., “Reliability of class II bulk-fill composite restorations with and without veneering: a two-year randomized clinical control study,” Operative Dentistry, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 491–504, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Wirsching, B. A. Loomans, B. Klaiber, and C. E. Dorfer, “Influence of matrix systems on proximal contact tightness of 2- and 3-surface posterior composite restorations in vivo,” Journal of Dentistry, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 386–390, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Haridy, M. A. Abdalla, D. Kaisarly, and M. E. Gezawi, “A cross-sectional multicenter survey on the future of dental education in the era of COVID-19: alternatives and implications,” Journal of Dental Education, vol. 85, no. 4, pp. 483–493, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. S. Castro, B. M. Maran, M. F. Gutierrez et al., “Dentin moisture does not influence postoperative sensitivity in posterior restorations: a double-blind randomized clinical trial,” American Journal of Dentistry, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 206–212, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Alassaf, B. Almulhim, S. A. Alghamdi, and S. K. Mallineni, “Perceptions and preventive practices regarding COVID-19 pandemic outbreak and oral health care perceptions during the lockdown: a cross-sectional survey from Saudi Arabia,” Healthcare, vol. 9, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Rasha AlSheikh et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies