Literature DB >> 15709496

A clinical evaluation of packable and microhybrid resin composite restorations: one-year report.

Fábio Barbosa de Souza1, Renata Pedrosa Guimarães, Cláudio Heliomar Vicente Silva.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of two packable and one microhybrid resin composites placed in occlusal cavities of posterior permanent teeth after 1 year. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Sixty occlusal restorations were placed in 18 male or female patients aged 21 to 44 years. The restorations were divided into three groups according to the restorative material: G1 (Surefil + Prime&Bond NT); G2 (Filtek P60 + Singlebond), and G3 (Suprafill + Suprafill). They were placed by two previously calibrated operators. The restorations were directly evaluated for color matching, marginal discoloration, secondary caries, wear, marginal adaptation, and postoperative sensitivity.
RESULTS: Of the total restorations, 66.7% were scored A (ideal) for color matching; 98.2% for marginal discoloration; 100% for secondary caries; 92.6% for wear; and 92.6% for marginal adaptation. Postoperative sensitivity was reported in 5% of the restorations. Fisher's exact, McNamara's, and chi-square tests did not indicate statistical difference between the groups, related to the evaluated criteria.
CONCLUSIONS: The packable (Filtek P60 and Surefil) and the microhybrid (Suprafill) resin composites exhibited excellent clinical performance after 1 year and may be considered possible materials for the restoration of posterior teeth.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15709496

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Quintessence Int        ISSN: 0033-6572            Impact factor:   1.677


  7 in total

1.  Comparative study of the wear behavior of composites for posterior restorations.

Authors:  Cecilia P Turssi; Juliana J Faraoni-Romano; Márcio de Menezes; Mônica C Serra
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 3.896

2.  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

Review 3.  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

4.  Evaluation of marginal sealing quality of restorations with low shrinkage composite resins.

Authors:  Bruno-Mendonça-Lucena de Veras; Renata-Pedrosa Guimarães; Luiz-Carlos Alves; Rafael-José-Ribeiro Padilha; Luana-Osório Fernandes; Carlos-Menezes Aguiar
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2020-12-01

5.  Comparative evaluation of combined amalgam and composite resin restorations in extensively carious vital posterior teeth: An in vivo study.

Authors:  Gagandeep Kaur; Manpreet Singh; Cs Bal; Up Singh
Journal:  J Conserv Dent       Date:  2011-01

6.  A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results.

Authors:  Hacer Balkaya; Soley Arslan; Kanşad Pala
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2019-10-07       Impact factor: 2.698

7.  Influence of Neuroticism on the Prognosis of Nanoceramic and Microhybrid Composite Restoration: A Comparative 1-year Clinical Study.

Authors:  Sulthan Ibrahim Raja Khan; Dinesh Rao; Anupama Ramachandran; Bhaskaran Veni Ashok; Abdulmohsen Alfadley
Journal:  J Int Soc Prev Community Dent       Date:  2020-09-28
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.