Literature DB >> 12915962

Clinical evaluation of two "packable" posterior composite resins: two-year results.

L G Lopes1, D F G Cefaly, E B Franco, R F L Mondelli, J R P Lauris, M F L Navarro.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of two "packable" posterior composites: Prodigy Condensable/Optibond Solo-Kerr (PC-OS) and Definite/Etch & Prime-Degussa (D-EP). Thirty-six patients participated in this study. A total of 78 restorations (40 with D-EP and 38 with PC-OS) were made. Each patient received at least two restorations (one of each studied material). The materials were handled according to the manufacturer's instructions. The occlusal adjustments were made at the placement visit. The restorations were finished and polished after 1 week. They were evaluated at baseline, and after 1 year and 2 years by two independent evaluators using the USPHS criteria. Colored slides were made of all the restorations. After 2 years, 34 patients and 74 restorations (38 with D-EP and 36 with PC-OS) were available for evaluation. A total of 50% of PC-OS restorations received A criterion and 50% received B criterion (2.8% color, 11.1% marginal staining, 27.8% superficial staining, 2.8% anatomic form and 5.6% marginal adaptation). For D-EP, 60.5% of restorations received A criterion and 39.5% received B criterion (2.6% color, 5.3% marginal staining, 10.5% superficial staining, 7.9% anatomic form and 13.2% marginal adaptation). The C criterion was observed only for marginal adaptation with D-EP (2 restorations-5.3%). The obtained data were tabulated and statistically analyzed using the Fisher, Chi-square and McNemar tests. After 2 years, PC-OS showed a significant increase in superficial and marginal staining. For D-EP the marginal adaptation and superficial staining became significantly worse than baseline.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12915962     DOI: 10.1007/s00784-003-0218-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Investig        ISSN: 1432-6981            Impact factor:   3.573


  26 in total

1.  Class I occlusal composite resin restorations: in vivo post-operative sensitivity, wall adaptation, and microleakage.

Authors:  N J Opdam; A J Feilzer; J J Roeters; I Smale
Journal:  Am J Dent       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 1.522

2.  Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: 5-year follow-up.

Authors:  R W Wassell; A W Walls; J F McCabe
Journal:  J Dent       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Physical properties of three packable resin-composite restorative materials.

Authors:  W P Kelsey; M A Latta; R S Shaddy; C M Stanislav
Journal:  Oper Dent       Date:  2000 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.440

4.  Twenty-four-month clinical evaluation of different posterior composite resin materials.

Authors:  L S Türkün; B O Aktener
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 3.634

5.  Class I and II posterior composite resin restorations after 5 and 10 years.

Authors:  S A Lundin; G Koch
Journal:  Swed Dent J       Date:  1999

6.  Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for posterior teeth after 3 years.

Authors:  C P Ernst; M Martin; S Stuff; B Willershausen
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 3.573

7.  Longevity of glass ceramic inlays and amalgam--results up to 6 years.

Authors:  J F Roulet
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 3.573

8.  2-year clinical evaluation of Class I posterior composites.

Authors:  A I Abdalla; H A Alhadainy
Journal:  Am J Dent       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 1.522

9.  Clinical criteria.

Authors:  G Ryge
Journal:  Int Dent J       Date:  1980-12       Impact factor: 2.512

10.  A practice-based, randomized, controlled clinical trial of a new resin composite restorative: one-year results.

Authors:  M A Wilson; A J Cowan; R C Randall; R J Crisp; N H F Wilson
Journal:  Oper Dent       Date:  2002 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.440

View more
  10 in total

1.  Marginal and internal adaptation of Class II ormocer and hybrid resin composite restorations before and after load cycling.

Authors:  N Kournetas; M Chakmakchi; A Kakaboura; C Rahiotis; J Geis-Gerstorfer
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2004-07-10       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Effect of the composite surface sealant application moment on marginal sealing of compactable composite resin restoration.

Authors:  Carina Sinclér Delfino; Sillas Duarte
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2007-06-12       Impact factor: 3.896

3.  Investigations on mechanical behaviour of dental composites.

Authors:  Nicoleta Ilie; Reinhard Hickel
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2009-02-26       Impact factor: 3.573

4.  Three-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial of the posterior composite QuiXfil in class I and II cavities.

Authors:  Juergen Manhart; Hong-Yan Chen; Reinhard Hickel
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2008-11-08       Impact factor: 3.573

5.  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

6.  Clinical performance of a nanofilled resin composite with and without an intermediary layer of flowable composite: a 2-year evaluation.

Authors:  Sebastian Stefanski; Jan W V van Dijken
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2010-11-23       Impact factor: 3.573

7.  Influence of pulse-delay curing on sorption and solubility of a composite resin.

Authors:  Lawrence Gonzaga Lopes; Alfeu da Veiga Jardim Filho; João Batista de Souza; Denilson Rabelo; Eduardo Batista Franco; Gersinei Carlos de Freitas
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2009 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.698

8.  56-month clinical performance of Class I and II resin composite restorations.

Authors:  Flavia Bittencourt Pazinatto; Ranulfo Gionordoli Neto; Linda Wang; José Mondelli; Rafael Francisco Lia Mondelli; Maria Fidela de Lima Navarro
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2012 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.698

9.  Clinical performance of Class I nanohybrid composite restorations with resin-modified glass-ionomer liner and flowable composite liner: A randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Krishtipati Suhasini; Koppolu Madhusudhana; Chinni Suneelkumar; Anumula Lavanya; K S Chandrababu; Perisetty Dinesh Kumar
Journal:  J Conserv Dent       Date:  2016 Nov-Dec

10.  Influence of different application protocols of universal adhesive system on the clinical behavior of Class I and II restorations of composite resin - a randomized and double-blind controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Andreia Assis Carvalho; Murillo Martins Leite; Jessica Karla Maia Zago; Carla Aparecida Bernardes Costa Meneses Nunes; Terezinha de Jesus Esteves Barata; Gersinei Carlos de Freitas; Érica Miranda de Torres; Lawrence Gonzaga Lopes
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2019-11-21       Impact factor: 2.757

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.