Probing the hierarchy of evidence to identify the best strategy for placing class II dental composite restorations using current materials.

OBJECTIVE The objective of this review is to present a synopsis of the existing clinical and in vitro evidence regarding placement of direct class II restorations with dental composites of varying viscosities, focusing on the marginal integrity achievable. OVERVIEW The literature on class II composites placed with various techniques was searched through PubMed, Scopus, and the citations of identified articles, focusing on aspects related to adaptation and clinical performance. Studies comparing layering of conventional composite to layering with a flowable liner, including the "snow plow technique," use of warmed composite, flowable bulk-fill liners with a conventional composite capping layer, and bulk-fill restorative in a single or incremental fill (including placement with sonic energy and dual-curing) CONCLUSIONS: In vitro and clinical evidence does not support any one specific method or material type for achieving optimal performance when restoring class II cavity preparations with current dental composites. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Although there are many available placement methods and types of composite materials on the market for use in class II restorations, the reasonable success presented in the clinical and laboratory literature for the various approaches suggests that the most important factor for achieving success is likely careful and proper placement and light-curing technique, independent of the approach.

[1]  E. Ercan,et al.  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 , 2017, Nigerian journal of clinical practice.

[2]  A. Briso,et al.  Randomized Prospective Clinical Trial of Class II Restorations Using Low-shrinkage Flowable Resin Composite. , 2019, Operative dentistry.

[3]  Sheung-Hoon Park,et al.  Comparison of Polymerization Shrinkage, Physical Properties, and Marginal Adaptation of Flowable and Restorative Bulk Fill Resin-Based Composites. , 2017, Operative dentistry.

[4]  C. Davidson,et al.  The Competition between the Composite-Dentin Bond Strength and the Polymerization Contraction Stress , 1984, Journal of dental research.

[5]  G. M. Marchi,et al.  Evaluation of Bond Strength, Nanoleakage, and Marginal Adaptation of Bulk-fill Composites Submitted to Thermomechanical Aging. , 2019, The journal of adhesive dentistry.

[6]  H. Schaller,et al.  A prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial of a one-step, self-etch adhesive with and without an intermediary layer of a flowable composite: a 2-year evaluation. , 2012, Quintessence international.

[7]  P. Schmidlin,et al.  Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth. , 2014, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[8]  D. Atabek,et al.  Two-year clinical performance of sonic-resin placement system in posterior restorations. , 2017, Quintessence international.

[9]  M. Forghani,et al.  Evaluating Resin-Dentin Bond by Microtensile Bond Strength Test: Effects of Various Resin Composites and Placement Techniques , 2015, The open dentistry journal.

[10]  J. Y. Thompson,et al.  A characterization of first-generation flowable composites. , 1998, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[11]  E. Swift,et al.  Packable composites: overview and technical considerations. , 1999, Journal of esthetic dentistry.

[12]  Neil B. Cramer,et al.  Recent Advances and Developments in Composite Dental Restorative Materials , 2011, Journal of dental research.

[13]  N. Opdam,et al.  Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. , 2012, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[14]  A. Jokstad Secondary caries and microleakage. , 2016, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[15]  U. Pallesen,et al.  Bulk‐filled posterior resin restorations based on stress‐decreasing resin technology: a randomized, controlled 6‐year evaluation , 2017, European journal of oral sciences.

[16]  B. Willershausen,et al.  Two-year clinical performance of a packable posterior composite with and without a flowable composite liner , 2003, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[17]  R. Hickel,et al.  Clinical evaluation of the bulk fill composite QuiXfil in molar class I and II cavities: 10-year results of a RCT. , 2018, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[18]  H. Balkaya,et al.  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 , 2019, Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB.

[19]  T. Attin,et al.  Margin Integrity of Bulk-Fill Composite Restorations in Primary Teeth , 2020, Materials.

[20]  J. Hodges,et al.  The effect of adhesive and flowable composite on postoperative sensitivity: 2-week results. , 2004, Quintessence international.

[21]  I. Krejci,et al.  In Vitro Evaluation of Marginal Adaptation of Direct Class II Composite Restorations Made of Different "Low-Shrinkage" Systems. , 2017, Operative dentistry.

[22]  S. Kamat,et al.  Effect of pre-heating composite resin on gap formation at three different temperatures , 2011, Journal of conservative dentistry : JCD.

[23]  C. Turssi,et al.  Clinical and radiographic evaluation of high viscosity bulk-fill resin composite restorations. , 2020, American Journal of Dentistry.

[24]  Jack L Ferracane,et al.  Factors involved in the development of polymerization shrinkage stress in resin-composites: a systematic review. , 2005, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[25]  J. Ferracane,et al.  Effect of heat on the flow of commercial composites. , 2009, American journal of dentistry.

[26]  P. Hörstedt,et al.  In vivo interfacial adaptation of class II resin composite restorations with and without a flowable resin composite liner , 2005, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[27]  M. Giannini,et al.  External Marginal Gap Evaluation of Different Resin-Filling Techniques for Class II Restorations-A Micro-CT and SEM Analysis. , 2020, Operative dentistry.

[28]  U. Blunck,et al.  Effect of pre-heated composites and flowable liners on Class II gingival margin gap formation. , 2010, Operative dentistry.

[29]  A. Garg,et al.  Evaluation of cervical marginal and internal adaptation using newer bulk fill composites: An in vitro study , 2015, Journal of conservative dentistry : JCD.

[30]  C. Lynch,et al.  An update on the reasons for placement and replacement of direct restorations. , 2018, Journal of dentistry.

[31]  C. Davidson,et al.  Setting Stress in Composite Resin in Relation to Configuration of the Restoration , 1987, Journal of dental research.

[32]  J. Ferracane Models of Caries Formation around Dental Composite Restorations , 2017, Journal of dental research.

[33]  G. Sandborgh-Englund,et al.  Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in adults – A systematic review. , 2015, Journal of dentistry.

[34]  S. Majidinia,et al.  Retrospective evaluation of the clinical performance of direct composite restorations using the snow-plow technique: Up to 4 years follow-up , 2019, Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry.

[35]  S. Antonson,et al.  Thirty-Six-Month Clinical Comparison of Bulk Fill and Nanofill Composite Restorations. , 2017, Operative dentistry.

[36]  Chih-Han Chang,et al.  Influence of flowable composite lining thickness on Class II composite restorations. , 2004, Operative dentistry.

[37]  M. Cross,et al.  Does an Incremental Filling Technique Reduce Polymerization Shrinkage Stresses? , 1996, Journal of dental research.

[38]  A. Loguércio,et al.  Evaluation of Bond Strength, Marginal Integrity, and Fracture Strength of Bulk- vs Incrementally-filled Restorations. , 2016, Journal of Adhesive Dentistry.

[39]  A. Georgescu,et al.  Evaluation of Pre-heating Effects on Marginal Adaptation of Resin-based Materials , 2018, Materiale plastice.

[40]  I Krejci,et al.  Marginal adaptation of direct class II composite restorations with different cavity liners. , 2013, Operative dentistry.

[41]  Rasha Al-Sheikh Effects of Different Application Techniques on Nanohybrid Composite Restorations Clinical Success , 2019, The Open Dentistry Journal.

[42]  T. Hilton Can modern restorative procedures and materials reliably seal cavities? In vitro investigations. Part 2. , 2002, American journal of dentistry.

[43]  S. Heintze,et al.  Marginal Quality of Class II Composite Restorations Placed in Bulk Compared to an Incremental Technique: Evaluation with SEM and Stereomicroscope. , 2015, The journal of adhesive dentistry.

[44]  J. Ferracane,et al.  At the Interface of Materials and Microbiology: A Call for the Development of Standardized Approaches to Assay Biomaterial-Biofilm Interactions , 2019, Journal of dental research.

[45]  D. Kaisarly,et al.  Marginal Integrity of Bulk Versus Incremental Fill Class II Composite Restorations. , 2016, Operative dentistry.

[46]  Reinhard Hickel,et al.  Clinical evaluation of the posterior composite Quixfil in class I and II cavities: 4-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. , 2010, The journal of adhesive dentistry.

[47]  R. Frankenberger,et al.  Marginal quality of flowable 4-mm base vs. conventionally layered resin composite. , 2011, Journal of dentistry.

[48]  S. Heintze Clinical relevance of tests on bond strength, microleakage and marginal adaptation. , 2013, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[49]  C. Dörter,et al.  Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer and nanofill composite with and without a flowable liner. , 2006, The journal of adhesive dentistry.

[50]  A. Lussi,et al.  Marginal Gap Formation in Approximal "Bulk Fill" Resin Composite Restorations After Artificial Ageing. , 2017, Operative dentistry.

[51]  M. Manso,et al.  Two-year clinical evaluation of packable and nanostructured resin-based composites placed with two techniques. , 2010, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[52]  J. Ferracane,et al.  Polymerization stress--is it clinically meaningful? , 2016, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[53]  D. Bardwell,et al.  An alternative method to reduce polymerization shrinkage in direct posterior composite restorations. , 2002, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[54]  G. Tosun,et al.  Clinical evaluation of bulk-fill resins and glass ionomer restorative materials: A 1-year follow-up randomized clinical trial in children , 2020, Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice.

[55]  Y. Bayraktar,et al.  One‐year clinical evaluation of different types of bulk‐fill composites , 2017, Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry.

[56]  A. Reis,et al.  Randomized 36-month follow-up of posterior bulk-filled resin composite restorations. , 2019, Journal of dentistry.

[57]  T. Attin,et al.  Comparison between different flow application techniques: SDR vs flowable composite. , 2013, The journal of adhesive dentistry.

[58]  E. Bronkhorst,et al.  Longevity of Posterior Composite Restorations , 2014, Journal of dental research.

[59]  J. Ferracane Hygroscopic and hydrolytic effects in dental polymer networks. , 2006, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[60]  C. Pfeifer,et al.  Clinical performance and chemical-physical properties of bulk fill composites resin -a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2019, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[61]  U. Pallesen,et al.  Bulk-fill resin composites: polymerization contraction, depth of cure, and gap formation. , 2015, Operative dentistry.

[62]  Katarzyna Lewusz-Butkiewicz,et al.  Marginal integrity of flowable and packable bulk fill materials used for class II restorations -A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. , 2020, Dental materials journal.

[63]  Hm El-Damanhoury,et al.  Polymerization shrinkage stress kinetics and related properties of bulk-fill resin composites. , 2014, Operative dentistry.

[64]  A. Moritz,et al.  Survival of direct resin restorations in posterior teeth within a 19-year period (1996-2015): A meta-analysis of prospective studies. , 2015, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[65]  U. İnan,et al.  Three-year clinical evaluation of class II posterior composite restorations placed with different techniques and flowable composite linings in endodontically treated teeth , 2016, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[66]  U. Pallesen,et al.  Clinical performance of a hybrid resin composite with and without an intermediate layer of flowable resin composite: a 7-year evaluation. , 2011, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[67]  A. Khan,et al.  Clinical Effectiveness of Bulk-Fill and Conventional Resin Composite Restorations: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis , 2020, Polymers.

[68]  I. Krejci,et al.  Marginal adaptation of class II cavities restored with bulk-fill composites. , 2014, Journal of dentistry.

[69]  Agata Szczesio-Wlodarczyk,et al.  Ageing of Dental Composites Based on Methacrylate Resins—A Critical Review of the Causes and Method of Assessment , 2020, Polymers.

[70]  I. Mjör The location of clinically diagnosed secondary caries. , 1998, Quintessence international.

[71]  S. Abboud,et al.  Clinical evaluation of class II composite: Resin restorations placed by two different bulk-fill techniques , 2016 .

[72]  M. Hadis,et al.  Shining a light on high volume photocurable materials. , 2018, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[73]  W. Teughels,et al.  Secondary caries: prevalence, characteristics, and approach , 2019, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[74]  E. Pellizzer,et al.  Clinical performance of bulk-fill and conventional resin composite restorations in posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2018, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[75]  H. Yadav,et al.  Effect of flowable composite liner and glass ionomer liner on class II gingival marginal adaptation of direct composite restorations with different bonding strategies. , 2014, Journal of dentistry.