Literature DB >> 16823554

Clinical evaluation of two packable posterior composites: 2-year follow-up.

T C Fagundes1, T J E Barata, E Bresciani, D F G Cefaly, M F F Jorge, M F L Navarro.   

Abstract

The clinical performance of two packable posterior composites, Alert (A)-Jeneric/Pentron and SureFil (S)-Dentsply, was evaluated in 33 patients. Each patient received one A and one S restoration, resulting in a total of 66 restorations. The restorations were placed by one operator according to the manufacturer's specifications and were finished and polished after 1 week. Photographs were taken at baseline and after 2 years. Two independent evaluators conducted the clinical evaluation by using modified United States Public Health Service criteria. After 2 years, 60 restorations (30 A and 30 S), 27 class I (16 A and 11 S) and 33 class II (14 A and 19 S) were evaluated in 30 patients. Criterion A for recurrent caries, vitality, and retention was applicable to all 60 restorations. Criterion B was distributed among 40 restorations as follows: surface texture (15 A; 2 S), color (5 A; 6 S), postoperative sensitivity (1 S), marginal discoloration (8 A), marginal adaptation (3 A), and wear resistance (2 A). Data were analyzed using the Exact Fisher and McNemar tests. After 2 years, S showed a significantly better performance than A with respect to surface texture and marginal discoloration. The clinical performance of both materials was considered acceptable over the 2-year period. Further evaluations are necessary for a more in-depth analysis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16823554     DOI: 10.1007/s00784-006-0059-y

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


  51 in total

1.  Polymerization contraction stress in light-cured packable composite resins.

Authors:  H Y Chen; J Manhart; R Hickel; K H Kunzelmann
Journal:  Dent Mater       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 5.304

2.  Porosities and voids in Class I restorations placed by six operators using a packable or syringable composite.

Authors:  Niek J M Opdam; Joost J M Roeters; Marieke Joosten; Olaf vd Veeke
Journal:  Dent Mater       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 5.304

3.  The suitability of packable resin-based composites for posterior restorations.

Authors:  J Manhart; H Y Chen; R Hickel
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 3.634

4.  Surface roughness of various packable composites.

Authors:  Timothy M Ryba; William J Dunn; David F Murchison
Journal:  Oper Dent       Date:  2002 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.440

5.  Comparison of direct and indirect methods for analyzing wear of posterior composite restorations.

Authors:  D F Taylor; S C Bayne; J R Sturdevant; A D Wilder
Journal:  Dent Mater       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 5.304

6.  Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid posterior resin-based composites: results at 3.5 years.

Authors:  Eric C M Poon; Roger J Smales; Kevin H K Yip
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 3.634

Review 7.  Benefits and disadvantages of tooth-coloured alternatives to amalgam.

Authors:  J F Roulet
Journal:  J Dent       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 4.379

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.  Measurement of clinical wear of two packable composites after 6 months in service.

Authors:  J S Blalock; D C N Chan; W D Browning; R Callan; S Hackman
Journal:  J Oral Rehabil       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 3.837

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
  6 in total

1.  Two-year clinical performance of two one-step self-etching adhesives in the restoration of cervical lesions.

Authors:  A Schattenberg; U Werling; B Willershausen; C-P Ernst
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2008-03-28       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Clinical study on resin composite and glass ionomer materials in II class restorations in permanent teeth.

Authors:  Piotr Rożniatowski; Emil Korporowicz; Dariusz Gozdowski; Dorota Olczak-Kowalczyk
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2021-02-01

3.  A comparative evaluation of dentinal hypersensitivity and microleakage associated with composite restorations in cavities preconditioned with air abrasion - An ex vivo study.

Authors:  Ankit Arora; Shashi Rashmi Acharya; Saraswathi M Vidya; Padmaja Sharma
Journal:  Contemp Clin Dent       Date:  2012-07

4.  Clinical evaluation of resin-based composites in posterior restorations: a 3-year study.

Authors:  Çiğdem Çelik; Neslihan Arhun; Kivanc Yamanel
Journal:  Med Princ Pract       Date:  2014-08-12       Impact factor: 1.927

5.  Clinical evaluation of resin-based composites in posterior restorations: 12-month results.

Authors:  Cigdem Celik; Neslihan Arhun; Kivanc Yamanel
Journal:  Eur J Dent       Date:  2010-01

6.  Three-year clinical performance of two indirect composite inlays compared to direct composite restorations.

Authors:  Nurcan Ozakar-Ilday; Yahya-Orcun Zorba; Mehmet Yildiz; Vildan Erdem; Nilgun Seven; Sezer Demirbuga
Journal:  Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal       Date:  2013-05-01
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.