Comparison of Postoperative Sensitivity in Posterior Teeth Using Conventional and Bulk Fill Composites

Zahra Zubair; Imran  Khan; Javeriya  Shahid; Samia  Rasool; Tabinda  Shan

doi:10.51253/pafmj.v76iSUPPL-9.11626

Authors

Zahra Zubair Department of Operative Dentistry & Endodontics, 28 Military Dental Centre, Lahore Pakistan
Imran Khan Department of Operative Dentistry & Endodontics, 28 Military Dental Centre, Lahore Pakistan
Javeriya Shahid Department of Operative Dentistry & Endodontics, 28 Military Dental Centre, Lahore Pakistan
Samia Rasool Department of Operative Dentistry & Endodontics, 28 Military Dental Centre, Lahore Pakistan
Tabinda Shan Department of Operative Dentistry & Endodontics, 28 Military Dental Centre, Lahore Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v76iSUPPL-9.11626

Keywords:

Composite Resins, Dental Restoration, Tooth Sensitivity

Abstract

Objective: To compare and assess post-operative pain and sensitivity at 24 hours and 1 month in Class I restorations done with bulk-fill composite and conventional incremental layering technique.

Study Design: Randomized controlled trial (NCT06852586).

Place and Duration of Study: Operative Dentistry Department, Dental Section, 28 Military Dental Centre, Lahore Pakistan, from Aug to Nov 2022.

Methodology: A total of 70 patients requiring Class I composite restorations in molars were randomly assigned into two groups: Group-1 (bulk-fill composite) and Group-2 (incremental composite technique), with 35 patients each. Pain and sensitivity were assessed postoperatively at 24 hours and 1 month using a 0–10 numerical rating scale. Data were processed with SPSS version 20. Frequencies and percentages were determined for qualitative variables, whereas medians and interquartile ranges (IQR) were expressed for pain scores. Shapiro-Wilk test was employed in order to check data normality, and Mann-Whitney U test was applied for comparison between groups. A p-value of <0.05 was regarded as significant.

Results: At 24 hours, 46.83% of patients had no pain in Group-1 versus 70.89% at 1 month. The median score for pain at 24 hours was decreased in Group-1 [Median = 0 (IQR = 2)] versus Group 2 [Median = 1.5 (IQR = 4)], although this did not reach statistical significance (p=0.121). At 1 month, the median was 0 (IQR 1) in both groups with no statistical difference (p=0.633).

Conclusion: Both incremental and bulk-fill composite methods revealed similar results in terms of post-operative sensitivity and pain, and no differences were noted.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Chiodera G, Orsini G, Tosco V, Monterubbianesi R, Manauta J, Devoto W, et al. Essential Lines: A simplified filling and modelling technique for direct posterior composite restorations. Int J Esthet Dent 2021; 16(2): 168-184.

2. Burke FJT, Mackenzie L, Sands P, Shortall ACC. Ten tips for avoiding post-operative sensitivity with posterior composite restorations. Dent Update 2021; 48(10): 823-832.

https://doi.org/10.12968/denu.2021.48.10.823

3. Veloso SRM, Lemos CAA, de Moraes SLD, do Egito Vasconcelos BC, Pellizzer EP, de Melo Monteiro GQ. 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): 221-233.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2429-7

4. Nascimento AS, Rodrigues JFB, Torres RHN, Santos KO, Fook MVL, Albuquerque MSd, et al. Physicomechanical and thermal analysis of bulk-fill and conventional composites. Braz Oral Res 2019; 33(0): e008.

https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2019.vol33.0008

5. Yazici AR, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E, Karahan S, Antonson SA. Six-year clinical evaluation of bulk-fill and nanofill resin composite restorations. Clin Oral Investig 2022; 26(1): 417-426.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04015-2

6. Burke FJT, Mackenzie L. Bonding to dentine: an update on universal adhesives. Dent Update 2021; 48(8): 620-631.

https://doi.org/10.12968/denu.2021.48.8.620

7. Veloso SR, Lemos CA, de Moraes SL, do Egito Vasconcelos BC, Pellizzer EP, de Melo Monteiro GQ. Clinical performance of bulk-fill and conventional resin composite restorations in posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investing 2019; 23: 221-233.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2429-7

8. Afifi SMH, Haridy MF, Farid MR. Evaluation of post-operative sensitivity of bulk fill resin composite versus nano resin composite: a randomized controlled clinical study. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2019; 7(14): 2335-2342.

https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2019.656

9. Tardem C, Albuquerque EG, Lopes LS, Marins SS, Calazans FS, Poubel LA, et al. Clinical time and postoperative sensitivity after use of bulk-fill (syringe and capsule) vs. incremental filling composites: a randomized clinical trial. Braz Oral Res 2019; 33(0): e089.

https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2019.vol33.0089

10. Cieplik F, Scholz KJ, Anthony JC, Tabenski I, Ettenberger S, Hiller K-A, et al. One-year results of a novel self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative and a conventional bulk-fill composite in class II cavities—A randomized clinical split-mouth study. Clin Oral Investig 2022; 26(1): 449-461.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04019-y

11. Sengupta A, Naka O, Mehta SB, Banerji S. The clinical performance of bulk-fill versus the incremental layered application of direct resin composite restorations: a systematic review. Evid Based Dent 2023; 24(3): 143.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-023-00905-4

12. Ibrahim MS, AlKhalefah AS, Alsaghirat AA, Alburayh RA, Alabdullah NA. Comparison between Different Bulk-Fill and Incremental Composite Materials Used for Class II Restorations in Primary and Permanent Teeth: In Vitro Assessments. Materials 2023; 16(20): 6674.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16206674

13. Martínez-Sabio L, Peñate L, Arregui M, Veloso Duran A, Blanco JR, Guinot F. Comparison of shear bond strength and microleakage between activa™ bioactive restorative™ and bulk-fill composites—an In vitro study. Polymers 2023; 15(13): 2840.

https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15132840

14. Elhejazi AA, Alosimi A, Alarifi F. The effect of depth of cure on microhardness between bulk-fill and hybrid composite resin material. Saudi Dent J 2024; 36(2): 381-385.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sdentj.2024.01.012

15. Yollar M, Karaoğlanoğlu S, ALTIPARMAK ET, Oktay EA, Aydin N, Ersöz B. The effects of dental adhesives total etch; self-etch and selective etch application procedures on microleakage in class II composite restorations. Eur Oral Res 2023; 57(3): 151-158. https://doi.org/10.26650/eor.20231197657

16. Çağırır Dindaroğlu F, Yılmaz E. Two-year evaluation of a nano-hybrid and a bulk-fill resin composite: a randomized, double-blind split-mouth clinical study. Clin Oral Investig 2024; 28(4): 1-2.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-024-05592-8

17. Par M, Spanovic N, Marovic D, Attin T, Tarle Z, Tauböck TT. Rapid high-intensity light-curing of bulk-fill composites: A quantitative analysis of marginal integrity. J Dent 2021; 111: 103708.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103708

18. Kunz PV, Wambier LM, Kaizer MD, Correr GM, Reis A, Gonzaga CC. Is the clinical performance of composite resin restorations in posterior teeth similar if restored with incremental or bulk-filling techniques? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig 2022: 26(3): 2281-2297.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04337-1