Written by: Robert A. Lowe, DDS
INTRODUCTION
It has long been a goal of dental clinical and material science to find a less technique-sensitive approach to the posterior direct resin restorative process. Unlike amalgam, the technique “insensitive” patrician of direct restoratives, successful placement of composite resins requires many more steps and exacting techniques to achieve clinically acceptable results. So, what does an “ideal” direct resin restorative material look like? When dentists (end users) are asked what improvements they would like to see in posterior direct resin materials, these are some of the responses they have given:
1) Ability for bulk filling (increased depth of cure)
2) Ease of delivery or placement
3) Better adaptation to the cavity preparation
4) Consistent interproximal contacts
5) Long-term predictability or reliability
6) Elimination of voids in the restoration
7) Strength to withstand functional (occlusal) forces
8) Minimal to no shrinkage upon polymerization
Since the introduction of composite resins in the mid 80s, composite manufacturers have made significant strides in accomplishing many of these wishes. However, there is still a way to go before we arrive at the ideal direct resin restorative…or is there?
Incremental vs Bulk-Fill Technique for Composite Placement: A Clinical Dilemma
Traditionally, clinical placement of composite resins has been done using an incremental placement technique. Because of polymerization shrinkage, as well as the inability to light cure composite materials beyond a certain depth, it has been generally recommended to place composite resin in increments of 2 mm or less. The question is, with advances in polymer chemistry, photoactivation, and curing light technologies that we currently see with today’s composite resin materials, is this still true? Several studies have been done, some as early as 2001, that compare incremental vs bulk-fill placement of composite that show that there is no difference in cuspal deflection or marginal integrity when comparing techniques of placement. The main clinical issue with bulk-fill placement is the depth of cure or the inability of the curing light in a deep preparation to reach the photoinitiator in the composite material to cause polymerization of the material. It is also important to note that directional curing from the buccal and lingual (palatal) aspects of a Class II preparation after removal of the matrix help increase the ability to cure composite at the gingival margin of the proximal box in a Class II restoration.1-3
Incremental placement, regardless of the classic 2 mm incremental approach of bulk placement of a dentin material followed by a separate capping layer of conventional composite, has shown that microleakage and inaccurate adaptation of the restorative material can lead to the ingress of recurrent decay and ultimate restoration failure.4-6
Bulk-Fill Flowable Materials as Dentin Replacements for Posterior Composite Restorations
In 2010, bulk-fill flowable composites were introduced to the dental marketplace, the first being Surefil SDR (Smart Dentin Replacement) by Dentsply Caulk. Since then, many other bulk-fill flowable composites have followed. These materials are indicated for use as a bulk-fill base (dentin replacement) beneath posterior composite restorations and can be placed in a single increment up to 4 mm in depth. Being able to place that amount of material in a single increment is a significant timesaver, and while the concept sounds quite simple, there are several important requirements a material must meet for this particular indication. According to the manufacturers, these include 1) increased depth of cure, 2) a viscosity that will readily adapt to the internal walls of the cavity without the need for manipulation of the material, and 3) low polymerization shrinkage stress. Because of their transparent nature and decreased percentage of filler particles, most bulk-fill flowable composites will require a conventional nanohybrid composite material to be placed as the enamel-capping layer.7-9
A Bioactive Component to Bulk-Fill Restorative Materials
What exactly does “bioactivity” mean in dentistry today? In addition to the effect of fluoride on healthy hydroxyapatite, making enamel less susceptible to demineralization due to the acid byproducts of bacterial metabolism, the ability of a material to contribute calcium and phosphate ions to help rebuild demineralized dentin is the new paradigm. These new “smart” bioactive dental materials react to pH changes in the oral environment to elicit changes in the material and the tooth as well. Hence, “biomineralization” refers to the exchange of calcium and phosphate ions within the tooth substance, forming new hydroxyapatite and, in many cases, repairing existing demineralized hydroxyapatite. Bioactivity also includes the precipitation of hydroxyapatite crystals on the surface of the material in the presence of moisture (saliva). This phenomenon has the potential to keep restoration margins sealed for extended periods of time due to this mineral-like deposition at the tooth-restorative interface.10-12
The advantages of bioactive restorative materials are clear after reading the above discussion regarding bioactivity and the effects of rebuilding damaged tooth structure. Having restorative materials that can protect, as well as repair and help seal the marginal gap that exists around all dental restorations, can help preserve the natural tooth and extend the life of the dental restoration. ACTIVA BioACTIVE-RESTORATIVE (Pulpdent) is one such restorative material. It is particularly useful for patients with high caries indices where getting control of the problem can be difficult. Acidic oral environments can create extensive damage to teeth, particularly if a patient doesn’t know which end of the toothbrush has the bristles! Pediatric patients and primary teeth have their own sets of issues as well. Finishing a procedure quickly in a less than moisture-free environment makes using traditional composites and adhesives very difficult to use on pediatric patients.
The recent introduction of ACTIVA BioACTIVE Bulk Flow (Pulpdent) brings us closer to that ideal restorative material that has been envisioned for years. In addition to satisfying all the improvements that dentists have asked for in a posterior restorative mentioned at the beginning of this article, ACTIVA BioACTIVE Bulk Flow has all the bioactive benefits of ACTIVA BioACTIVE-RESTORATIVE. And like ACTIVA BioACTIVE-RESTORATIVE, it is a dual-cure material that eliminates any depth of cure issues that may exist in larger cavities. Dual-cure capability offers an advantage in deeper cavities where it can be difficult for curing lights to reach and completely cure the bottom of the restoration. The addition of bioactive properties to a bulk-fill restorative material gives long-term benefits to the patient: help defend against secondary caries by decreasing biofilm accumulation; support the natural remineralization process of demineralized tooth structure; and maintain the restorative marginal seal by facilitating the deposition of apatite crystals on the surface of the restorative material.13 Another difference from the original ACTIVA BioACTIVE-RESTORATIVE material is the new syringe delivery, which allows for a traditional delivery technique.
Case Report
In this case study, we will look at how ACTIVA BioACTIVE Bulk Flow utilizes self-leveling properties, has minimal shrinkage stress due to Modulus (a patented rubberized resin technology), and provides excellent single-shade aesthetics making it a superior choice for the direct restoration of posterior teeth. It is for these reasons ACTIVA BioACTIVE Bulk Flow (Figure 1) was chosen for this case. The patient, a 27-year-old male, presented with a fractured composite restoration with recurrent decay diagnosed by radiograph on the distal surface of tooth No. 12. Although a full coverage indirect restoration was recommended for this tooth, the patient opted for a direct restoration at this time. A preoperative occlusal view of tooth No. 12 is shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 shows that after the initial removal of the old restorative material, except for the marginal ridge portion, it was evident that the gingival wall of the original cavity preparation was never properly sealed. The remainder of the old restorative material was removed, and a diode laser was used to further expose the gingival extent of the preparation. This helped ensure a proper seal of the gingival margin when the matrix is placed since the tissue will not impede its placement (Figure 4). Caries was also observed on the mesial aspect of the preparation running under the mesial marginal ridge toward the proximal surface below the contact area (Figure 5). A sectional matrix and ring (Composi-Tight 3D Fusion [Garrison Dental Solutions]) had been utilized on both the mesial and distal surfaces of the Class II preparation to contain the restorative material (Figure 6). Precise placement of the matrix band at the cavosurface margins and marginal ridge to confine the restorative material is very important to prevent marginal overflow and excessive contouring after placement. Next, implementing total-etch technique, the preparation was etched for 15 seconds (Figure 7), rinsed, then dried, being careful not to over-desiccate the dentinal surface. A universal adhesive is placed with a brush (Figure 8), air-thinned to evaporate the solvent, then light cured per the manufacturer’s instructions (Figure 9). ACTIVA BioACTIVE Bulk Flow is then delivered to the preparation in one bulk increment (Figure 10). The viscosity is such that the material readily flows and accurately fills the entire preparation with intimate adaptation to the cavity walls. The ability of the material to “self-level” helps limit the potential of overfilling the cavity preparation during placement. Next, the material is light cured based on the manufacturer’s instructions. Figure 11 shows the bulk fill after it is placed and light cured. Notice that the cavity was not overfilled and there is very little excess due to the precise fit of the sectional matrix band. This will simplify and speed up the finishing process of the restoration. Figure 12 shows use of an abrasive device (ContacEZ [Directa USA]) to refine proximal contour and contact area. A needle-shaped diamond composite finishing bur (mosquito bur) was used to accentuate anatomic form and make any minor occlusal adjustments. Rubber abrasives are then used to obtain a final polish to the restoration (A.S.A.P. – All Surface Access Polishers [Clinician’s Choice]). After placement and curing of a composite surface sealant (Embrace Wetbond Seal-n-Shine [Pulpdent]), the final ACTIVA BioACTIVE Bulk Flow restoration on tooth No. 12 is shown in Figure 13. Notice how the single-shade aesthetics makes these restorations disappear into the natural tooth structure. Figure 14 is a preop bitewing x-ray of tooth No. 12 showing the extent of the recurrent decay on the distal aspect apical to the old composite restoration. Figure 15 is a postoperative bitewing x-ray showing the completed placement of the ACTIVA BioACTIVE Bulk Flow restoration on tooth No. 12. It is important to note that the mesial aspect of the amalgam restoration on tooth No. 13 was recontoured prior to placement of the bulk-fill restoration on tooth No. 12 to eliminate the overhang and create a more ideal interproximal embrasure. This procedure should always be done, as needed, on adjacent restorations (teeth) prior to new restorative placement to create more physiologic tooth contours in the gingival embrasure spaces.
for ideal contour and contact of the restoration being fabricated.
CONCLUSION
We are now closer than ever before to an ideal direct restorative material. Precise placement is now more predictable using a single increment, dual-cure restorative that also provides long-term bioactive benefits. Extending the life of direct restorative materials before requiring replacement has the potential benefit of helping patients keep their natural teeth longer without the need for more extensive restoration or replacement by implants.
REFERENCES
1. Campodonico CE, Tantbirojn D, Olin PS, et al. Cuspal deflection and depth of cure in resin-based composite restorations filled by using bulk, incremental and transtooth-illumination techniques. J Am Dent Assoc. 2011;142(10):1176–82. doi:10.14219/jada.archive.2011.0087
2. Rees JS, Jagger DC, Williams DR, et al. A reappraisal of the incremental packing technique for light cured composite resins. J Oral Rehabil. 2004;31(1):81–4. doi:10.1046/j.0305-182x.2003.01073.x
3. Flury S, Hayoz S, Peutzfeldt A, et al. Depth of cure of resin composites: is the ISO 4049 method suitable for bulk fill materials? Dent Mater. 2012;28(5):521–8. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2012.02.002
4. Ilie N, Bucuta S, Draenert M. Bulk-fill resin-based composites: an in vitro assessment of their mechanical performance. Oper Dent. 2013; 38(6):618–25. doi:10.2341/12-395-L
5. Juloski J, Carrabba M, Aragoneses JM, et al. Microleakage of Class II restorations and microtensile bond strength to dentin of low-shrinkage composites. Am J Dent. 2013;26(5):271–7.
6. Van Ende A, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, et al. Bulk-filling of high C-factor posterior cavities: effect on adhesion to cavity-bottom dentin. Dent Mater. 2013;29(3):269–77. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2012.11.002
7. Roggendorf MJ, Krämer N, Appelt A, et al. Marginal quality of flowable 4-mm base vs. conventionally layered resin composite. J Dent. 2011;39(10):643–7. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2011.07.004
8. Yapp R, Powers JM. Depth of cure of several composite restorative materials. Dental Advisor Res Rpt. 2011;33:1.
9. Alrahlah A, Silikas N, Watts DC. Post-cure depth of cure of bulk fill dental resin-composites. Dent Mater. 2014;30(2):149–54. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2013.10.011
10. Hench LL, Paschall HA. Direct chemical bond of bioactive glass-ceramic materials to bone and muscle. J Biomed Mater Res. 1973;7(3):25-42. doi:10.1002/jbm.820070304
11. McCabe JF, Yan Z, Al Naimi OT, et al. Smart materials in dentistry. Aust Dent J. 2011;56 Suppl 1:3-10. doi:10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01291.x
12. Jefferies SR, Fuller AE, Boston DW. Preliminary evidence that bioactive cements occlude artificial marginal gaps. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2015;27(3):155–66. doi:10.1111/jerd.12133
13. Sauro S, Pashley DH. Strategies to stabilise dentine-bonded interfaces through remineralising operative approaches – State of the Art. Int J Adhes Adhes. 2016;69:39-57. doi:10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2016.03.014
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dr. Lowe received his DDS degree from the Loyola University School of Dentistry in 1982. He previously taught at the Loyola University School of Dentistry while building a private practice in Chicago. Dr. Lowe is a member of Catapult Elite Speakers’ Bureau and has Fellowships in the AGD, International College of Dentists, Academy of Dentistry International, Pierre Fauchard Academy, American College of Dentists, the International Academy of Dento-Facial Aesthetics, and the American Society for Dental Aesthetics. In 2004, he received the Gordon Christensen Outstanding Lecturer Award for his contributions in the area of dental education. In 2005, Dr. Lowe was nominated to receive Diplomate status on the American Board of Aesthetic Dentistry, an honor shared by less than 50 dentists in the entire United States. Over his career, Dr. Lowe has authored and published several hundred articles in many phases of cosmetic and rehabilitative dentistry. Dr. Lowe currently maintains a full-time practice in Charlotte, NC. He can be reached at boblowedds@aol.com.
Disclosure: Dr. Lowe received an honorarium from Pulpdent Corporation for photgraphing and writing this clinical article.
