PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of two polyacid-modified resin composites (Dyract AP and F2000) in posterior teeth after 1 year of clinical service. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-two Class I restorations were performed in 33 patients (average age 25 years) by one operator. Eighty-two per cent of the restorations were located in molars. Before the proceedings, patients were informed about the aim of the study and they gave written consent to participate. At least one restoration of each material was placed in each individual. The materials were applied according manufacturer's instructions. Following finishing and polishing, one examiner performed the clinical baseline examination using the adapted USPHS system. To be included in the clinical trial, a restoration had to be rated "Alpha". After one year, 25 patients were recalled and 56 restorations were evaluated using the adapted USPHS system. RESULTS: All restorations were classified as clinically satisfactory (Alpha or Bravo). However, there was a decrease in restoration quality compared to baseline. Statistical analysis (chi2 and Fisher's exact test) demonstrated differences only in relation to superficial roughness, with exhibiting F2000 more surface roughness than Dyract AP (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Based on the methodology employed, all restorations were satisfactory after one year and the two materials performed similarly, except for the surface roughness criteria.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of two polyacid-modified resin composites (Dyract AP and F2000) in posterior teeth after 1 year of clinical service. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-two Class I restorations were performed in 33 patients (average age 25 years) by one operator. Eighty-two per cent of the restorations were located in molars. Before the proceedings, patients were informed about the aim of the study and they gave written consent to participate. At least one restoration of each material was placed in each individual. The materials were applied according manufacturer's instructions. Following finishing and polishing, one examiner performed the clinical baseline examination using the adapted USPHS system. To be included in the clinical trial, a restoration had to be rated "Alpha". After one year, 25 patients were recalled and 56 restorations were evaluated using the adapted USPHS system. RESULTS: All restorations were classified as clinically satisfactory (Alpha or Bravo). However, there was a decrease in restoration quality compared to baseline. Statistical analysis (chi2 and Fisher's exact test) demonstrated differences only in relation to superficial roughness, with exhibiting F2000 more surface roughness than Dyract AP (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Based on the methodology employed, all restorations were satisfactory after one year and the two materials performed similarly, except for the surface roughness criteria.