BACKGROUND: The authors evaluated clinical performances of a packable and a conventional hybrid resin-based composite used with a self-etch adhesive system. METHODS: Three dentists placed 105 posterior restorations in 65 adults. They placed a packable (SureFil, Dentsply DeTrey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany) and a conventional (Spectrum, Dentsply DeTrey GmbH) resin-based composite using a self-etch resin adhesive system. The authors evaluated the restorations using Ryge modified criteria, photographs and die stone replicas. RESULTS: After 3.5 years, six large SureFil and two Spectrum restorations had failed from bulk fracture and secondary caries, resulting in cumulative survival rates of 81.3 and 92.0 percent, respectively. Failed SureFil restorations generally were larger than the remaining intact restorations. Other ratings were satisfactory, with no significant differences between the two materials for any restoration parameter. Alfa ratings for both materials were approximately 80 percent or greater 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. No postoperative sensitivity was reported. Net mean occlusal wear (+/- standard deviation) was 28.9 (+/- 32.9) micrometers for SureFil and 33.8 (+/- 29.6) microm for Spectrum restorations; the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: When used with a self-etch adhesive, the 3.5-year clinical performances of both composites were similar and satisfactory for the restoration of Class I and moderate-sized Class II cavities. Clinical Implications. The two composites placed in this study have an increased risk of bulk fracture when placed in large intracoronal Class II molar preparations.
BACKGROUND: The authors evaluated clinical performances of a packable and a conventional hybrid resin-based composite used with a self-etch adhesive system. METHODS: Three dentists placed 105 posterior restorations in 65 adults. They placed a packable (SureFil, Dentsply DeTrey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany) and a conventional (Spectrum, Dentsply DeTrey GmbH) resin-based composite using a self-etch resin adhesive system. The authors evaluated the restorations using Ryge modified criteria, photographs and die stone replicas. RESULTS: After 3.5 years, six large SureFil and two Spectrum restorations had failed from bulk fracture and secondary caries, resulting in cumulative survival rates of 81.3 and 92.0 percent, respectively. Failed SureFil restorations generally were larger than the remaining intact restorations. Other ratings were satisfactory, with no significant differences between the two materials for any restoration parameter. Alfa ratings for both materials were approximately 80 percent or greater 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. No postoperative sensitivity was reported. Net mean occlusal wear (+/- standard deviation) was 28.9 (+/- 32.9) micrometers for SureFil and 33.8 (+/- 29.6) microm for Spectrum restorations; the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: When used with a self-etch adhesive, the 3.5-year clinical performances of both composites were similar and satisfactory for the restoration of Class I and moderate-sized Class II cavities. Clinical Implications. The two composites placed in this study have an increased risk of bulk fracture when placed in large intracoronal Class II molar preparations.
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