BACKGROUND: Packable resin-based composites and simplified resin bonding systems are marketed to offer many advantages over conventional posterior hybrid composites and total-etch bonding systems. The authors conducted a study to evaluate the initial clinical performances of a packable and a conventional hybrid resin-based composite used with a simplified bonding system. METHODS: A total of 57 Class I and 45 Class II restorations were placed in the permanent teeth of 65 adult patients. The carious lesions were restored with either packable resin-based composite (SureFil, Dentsply DeTrey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany) or conventional hybrid resin-based composite (SpectrumTPH, Dentsply DeTrey GmbH), using a resin adhesive (Non-Rinse Conditioner and Prime & Bond NT, both manufactured by Dentsply DeTrey GmbH). The authors evaluated the restorations using U.S. Public Health Service-Ryge modified criteria (in which Alfa is the highest rating) and by using color transparencies and die stone replicas. RESULTS: Three SureFil restorations failed before their baseline evaluation. There were no failures among the 78 SpectrumTPH restorations evaluated at 12 months. For both resin-based composites, Alfa ratings were 90 percent or higher for marginal discoloration, anatomical form, surface texture and surface staining. Lower percentages of restorations were rated Alfa for color match, marginal integrity and gingival health. Occasional mild postoperative sensitivity was reported for four SureFil restorations and one SpectrumTPH restoration. The mean occlusal wear rate was 38 micrometers for the larger SureFil restorations and 25 microm for the smaller SpectrumTPH restorations. CONCLUSIONS: The 12-month clinical performances of the two restorative materials were satisfactory and not significantly different for each of the parameters evaluated. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: A packable and a conventional hybrid resin-based composite placed with a simplified bonding system in posterior permanent teeth showed satisfactory and similar results after 12 months.
BACKGROUND: Packable resin-based composites and simplified resin bonding systems are marketed to offer many advantages over conventional posterior hybrid composites and total-etch bonding systems. The authors conducted a study to evaluate the initial clinical performances of a packable and a conventional hybrid resin-based composite used with a simplified bonding system. METHODS: A total of 57 Class I and 45 Class II restorations were placed in the permanent teeth of 65 adult patients. The carious lesions were restored with either packable resin-based composite (SureFil, Dentsply DeTrey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany) or conventional hybrid resin-based composite (SpectrumTPH, Dentsply DeTrey GmbH), using a resin adhesive (Non-Rinse Conditioner and Prime & Bond NT, both manufactured by Dentsply DeTrey GmbH). The authors evaluated the restorations using U.S. Public Health Service-Ryge modified criteria (in which Alfa is the highest rating) and by using color transparencies and die stone replicas. RESULTS: Three SureFil restorations failed before their baseline evaluation. There were no failures among the 78 SpectrumTPH restorations evaluated at 12 months. For both resin-based composites, Alfa ratings were 90 percent or higher for marginal discoloration, anatomical form, surface texture and surface staining. Lower percentages of restorations were rated Alfa for color match, marginal integrity and gingival health. Occasional mild postoperative sensitivity was reported for four SureFil restorations and one SpectrumTPH restoration. The mean occlusal wear rate was 38 micrometers for the larger SureFil restorations and 25 microm for the smaller SpectrumTPH restorations. CONCLUSIONS: The 12-month clinical performances of the two restorative materials were satisfactory and not significantly different for each of the parameters evaluated. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: A packable and a conventional hybrid resin-based composite placed with a simplified bonding system in posterior permanent teeth showed satisfactory and similar results after 12 months.
Authors: Gary S Berkowitz; Allan J Horowitz; Fredrick A Curro; Ronald G Craig; Jonathan A Ship; Donald Vena; Van P Thompson Journal: Compend Contin Educ Dent Date: 2009 Jul-Aug
Authors: Xiaoming Xu; Yapin Wang; Sumei Liao; Zezhang T Wen; Yuwei Fan Journal: J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater Date: 2012-03-24 Impact factor: 3.368
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
Authors: Brad Strober; Analia Veitz-Keenan; Julie Ann Barna; Abigail G Matthews; Donald Vena; Ronald G Craig; Frederick A Curro; Van P Thompson Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 3.634
Authors: Maryann Lehmann; Analia Veitz-Keenan; Abigail G Matthews; Donald Vena; Ashley Grill; Ronald G Craig; Frederick A Curro; Van P Thompson Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 3.634
Authors: Gary Berkowitz; Howard Spielman; Abigail Matthews; Donald Vena; Ronald Craig; Frederick Curro; Van Thompson Journal: Compend Contin Educ Dent Date: 2013-03
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