Statement of problem
Placing removable partial denture (RPD) rests on composite resin restorations has long been a debatable issue. Despite developments in composite resins such as nanotechnology and bulk-filling techniques, studies investigating the performance of composite resin restorations when used to support occlusal rests remain scarce.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the performance of bulk-fill versus incremental (conventional) nanocomposite resin restorations when they are used to support RPD rests under functional loading.
Material and methods
Thirty-five caries-free intact maxillary molars of similar coronal size were collected and divided into 5 equal groups (n=7): Enamel (Control) group: rest seats prepared entirely in enamel; Class I Incremental group: Class I cavities restored with incrementally placed nanohybrid resin composite resin (Tetric N-Ceram); Class II Incremental group: Mesio-occlusal (MO) Class II cavities restored with Tetric N-Ceram; Class I Bulk-fill group: Class I cavities restored with high-viscosity bulk-fill hybrid resin composite (Tetric N-Ceram Bulk-Fill); and Class II Bulk-fill group: MO Class II cavities restored with Tetric N-Ceram Bulk-Fill. Occlusal rest seats were prepared mesially in all groups, and clasp assemblies were fabricated and cast in cobalt chromium alloy. Specimens with their clasp assemblies were subjected to thermomechanical cycling using a mechanical cycling machine (250000 masticatory cycles) and 5000 thermal cycles (5 °C to 50 °C). Surface roughness (Ra) was measured with a contact profilometer before and after cycling. Fracture analysis was done using stereomicroscopy, and margin analysis was done with a scanning electron microscope (SEM) before and after cycling. Statistical analysis of Ra was conducted using ANOVA followed by the Scheffé test for between-group comparison and paired t test for within-group comparison. The Fisher exact probability test was used for fracture analysis. The Mann–Whitney test was used for between-group comparison and Wilcoxon signed rank test for within-group comparison for the SEM images (α=.05).
Mean Ra increased significantly after cycling in all groups. Significant differences in Ra were found between enamel and all 4 resin groups (P<.001), with no significant differences between incremental and bulk-fill resin groups for both Class I and II specimens (P>.05). No significant differences were found between the 2 resin groups with regard to fracture and margin analysis (P>.05).
The surface roughness of enamel was significantly lower than that of both incremental and bulk-fill nanocomposite resins before and after functional loading. Incremental and bulk-fill nanocomposite resins showed comparable performance in terms of surface roughness, fracture behavior, and marginal adaptation.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Non-precious metal alloy double crown-retained removable partial dentures: a cross-sectional in vivo investigation.Materials (Basel). 2022; 15: 6137
- Loss of abutment teeth for double crown-retained removable partial dentures compared to clasp-retained removable partial dentures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Quintessence Int. 2021; 0: 412-424
- Tooth preparation for rest seats for cobalt–chromium removable partial dentures completed by general dental practitioners.J Oral Rehabil. 2011; 38: 72-78
- Caries, periodontal and prosthetic findings in patients with removable partial dentures: a ten-year longitudinal study.J Prosthet Dent. 1982; 48: 506-514
- Clinical evaluation of patients eight to nine years after placement of removable partial dentures.J Prosthet Dent. 1984; 51: 736-743
- Clinical evaluation of removable partial dentures 10 years after insertion: success rates, hygienic problems, and technical failures.Clin Oral Investig. 2000; 4: 74-80
- In vitro investigation of the performance of different restorative materials under cast circumferential clasps for removable dental prostheses.Clin Oral Investig. 2012; 16: 1659-1667
- Using packable composites for direct posterior placement.J Am Dent Assoc. 2001; 132: 1099-1104
- Water uptake and strength characteristics of a nano-filled resin-based composite.J Dent. 2008; 36: 186-193
- Recent advances and developments in composite dental restorative materials.J Dent Res. 2011; 90: 402-416
- An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials.J Am Dent Assoc. 2003; 134: 1382-1390
- Evaluation of mechanical properties of newer nanoposterior restorative resin composites: an in vitro study.Contemp Clin Dent. 2018; 9: S142-S146
- Do Nanofilled/nanohybrid composites allow for better clinical performance of direct restorations than traditional microhybrid composites? A Systematic review.Oper Dent. 2018; 43: E191-E209
- Nanofilled resin composite properties and clinical performance: a review.Oper Dent. 2018; 43: E173-E190
- Surface roughness and gloss of polished nanofilled and nanohybrid resin composites.J Dent Sci. 2021; 16: 1198-1203
- Effect of bulk/incremental fill on internal gap formation of bulk fill composites.J Dent. 2014; 42: 439-449
- Interfacial stress and bond strength of bulk-fill or conventional composite resins to dentin in Class II restorations.Braz Dent J. 2020; 31: 532-539
- Roughness analysis on composite materials (microfilled, nanofilled and silorane) after different finishing and polishing procedures.Open Dent J. 2015; 9: 357-367
- Effect of polishing systems on the surface roughness of nano-hybrid and nano-filling composite resins: a systematic review.Dent J (Basel). 2021; 12: 95
- Effect of staining and bleaching on the microhardness, surface roughness and color of different composite resins.Dent Med Probl. 2021; 58: 369-376
- Marginal quality of flowable 4-mm base vs. conventionally layered resin composite.J Dent. 2011; 39: 643-647
- Marginal quality of Class II composite restorations placed in bulk compared to an incremental technique: evaluation with SEM and stereomicroscope.J Adhes Dent. 2015; 17: 147-154
- Marginal integrity of bulk versus incremental fill Class II composite restorations.Oper Dent. 2016; 41: 146-156
- Marginal Gap Formation in approximal "bulk fill" resin composite restorations after artificial ageing.Oper Dent. 2018; 43: 180-189
- Impact of additional polishing method on physical, micromorphological, and microtopographical properties of conventional composites and bulk fill.Microsc Res Tech. 2020; 83: 211-222
- Surface geometry of four conventional nanohybrid resin-based composites and four regular viscosity bulk fill resin-based composites after two-step polishing procedure.Biomed Res Int. 2020; 2020: 6203053
- Effects of finishing and polishing methods on the surface roughness and Surface free energy of bulk-fill resin composites.Oper Dent. 2020; 45: E91-E104
- The effect of contemporary finishing and polishing systems on the surface roughness of bulk fill resin composite and nanocomposites.J Esthet Restor Dent. 2022; 34: 915-923
- Clinical performance of bulk-fill and conventional resin composite restorations in posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clin Oral Investig. 2019; 23: 221-233
- 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: 2281-2297
- Is the clinical performance of incremental and bulk-fill resin composite different?.Evid Based Dent. 2022; 23: 84
- Effect of posterior resin composite placement technique on the resin-dentin interface formed in vivo.Quintessence Int. 2004; 35: 156-161
- Marginal adaptation of class II cavities restored with bulk-fill composites.J Dent. 2014; 42: 575-581
- In vitro evaluation of microleakage in Class II composite restorations: high-viscosity bulk-fill vs conventional composites.Dent Mater J. 2019; 38: 721-727
- The effect of occlusal loading on gingival microleakage of bulk fill composites compared with a conventional composite.J Dent (Shiraz). 2020; 21: 87-94
- Determination of polymerization shrinkage of different composites using a photoelastic method.Am J Dent. 2017; 30: 16-22
- Fracture resistance of posterior teeth restored with high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composites in comparison to the incremental placement technique.J Conserv Dent. 2017; 20: 360-364
- The effect of two composite placement techniques on fracture resistance of MOD restorations with various resin composites.J Dent. 2020; 101: 103348
- Assessing fracture resistance of restored premolars with novel nomposite materials: an in vitro study.Int J Dent. 2021; 2021: 5512708
- In vitro fatigue resistance of teeth restored with bulk fill versus conventional composite resin.Braz Dent J. 2016; 27: 452-457
- [Comparison of wear resistance and flexural strength of three kinds of bulk-fill composite resins].Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 2016; 25 ([in Chinese]): 292-295
- Two-body wear behavior of human enamel versus monolithic zirconia, lithium disilicate, ceramometal and composite resin.J Adv Prosthodont. 2019; 11: 23-31
- In vitro evaluation of human dental enamel surface roughness bleached with 35% carbamide peroxide and submitted to abrasive dentifrice brushing.Pesqui Odontol Bras. 2003; 17: 342-348
- Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature.Dent Mater. 1997; 13: 258-269
- A comparison of the wear resistance and hardness of indirect composite resins.J Prosthet Dent. 2001; 85: 386-395
- Mccracken's Removable Partial Prosthodontics.13th ed. Elsevier, 2015: 56-67
- Bulk fill composites have similar performance to conventional dental composites.Int J Mol Sci. 2020; 20: 5136
- Surface roughness and morphology of three nanocomposites after two different polishing treatments by a multitechnique approach.Dent Mater. 2010; 26: 416-425
- Surface geometry of four nanofiller and one hybrid composite after one step and multiple step polishing.Oper Dent. 2007; 32: 347-355
- Nanohybrid resin composites: nanofiller loaded materials of traditional microhybrid resins?.Oper Dent. 2009; 34: 551-557
- Polymerization shrinkage stress kinetics and related properties of bulk-fill resin composites.Oper Dent. 2014; 39: 374-382
Published online: April 24, 2023
Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
© 2023 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.