Literature DB >> 11551005

One-year clinical evaluation of posterior packable resin composite restorations.

A D Loguercio1, A Reis, L E Rodrigues Filho, A L Busato.   

Abstract

This study evaluated the clinical performance of four packable resin composite restorative materials in posterior teeth (Class I and II) compared with one hybrid composite after one year. Eighty-four restorations were placed in 16 patients. Each patient received at least five restorations. The tested materials were: (1) Solitaire + Solid Bond; (2) ALERT + Bond-1; (3) Surefil + Prime & Bond NT (4) Filtek P60 + Single Bond and; (5) TPH Spectrum + Prime & Bond 2.1. All restorations were made using rubber dam isolation, and the cavity design was restricted to the elimination of carious tissue. Deeper cavities were covered with calcium hydroxide and/or glass ionomer cement. In shallow and medium cavities, no protection was performed except for the respective adhesive system used in each group. Each adhesive system and resin composite was placed according to the manufacturer's instructions. One week later, the restorations were finished/polished and evaluated according to the USPHS modified criteria. All patients attended the one-year recall, and the 84 restorations were evaluated at that time based on the same evaluation criteria. The scores were submitted to statistical analysis (Chi-square test, p<0.05). Solitaire and TPH showed some fractures at marginal ridges. Solitaire, ALERT and TPH showed some concerns related to color match and surface texture. Surefil and Filtek P60 showed an excellent clinical performance after one year.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11551005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oper Dent        ISSN: 0361-7734            Impact factor:   2.440


  8 in total

1.  Clinical evaluation of two packable posterior composites: 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  T C Fagundes; T J E Barata; E Bresciani; D F G Cefaly; M F F Jorge; M F L Navarro
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2006-07-06       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Dental cavity liners for Class I and Class II resin-based composite restorations.

Authors:  Andrew B Schenkel; Analia Veitz-Keenan
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-03-05

Review 3.  Dental cavity liners for Class I and Class II resin-based composite restorations.

Authors:  Andrew B Schenkel; Ivy Peltz; Analia Veitz-Keenan
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-10-25

Review 4.  Compliance of randomized controlled trials in posterior restorations with the CONSORT statement: a systematic review of methodology.

Authors:  Márcia Rezende; Ana Cristina Rodrigues Martins; Jadson Araújo da Silva; Alessandra Reis; Juliana Larocca de Geus
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2021-09-30       Impact factor: 3.606

5.  Effect of bleaching on color change of composite after immersion in chlorhexidine and coffee.

Authors:  Elham Hasani; Alireza Akbarzadeh Baghban; Seyedeh Mahsa Sheikh-Al-Eslamian; Alireza Sadr
Journal:  J Conserv Dent       Date:  2020-08-20

6.  Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth.

Authors:  A Brunthaler; F König; T Lucas; W Sperr; A Schedle
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2003-05-27       Impact factor: 3.573

7.  Clinical evaluation of resin-based composites in posterior restorations: 12-month results.

Authors:  Cigdem Celik; Neslihan Arhun; Kivanc Yamanel
Journal:  Eur J Dent       Date:  2010-01

8.  One Year Clinical Evaluation of a Low Shrinkage Composite Compared with a Packable Composite Resin: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Razieh Hoseinifar; Elaheh Mortazavi-Lahijani; Hassan Mollahassani; Ahmad Ghaderi
Journal:  J Dent (Tehran)       Date:  2017-03
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.