BACKGROUND: Research has suggested that packable resin-based composites inserted with a placement technique similar to amalgam condensation can reduce the sensitivity associated with posterior restorations. The authors evaluated the clinical performance, including associated sensitivity, of two packable composites in a randomized five-year clinical trial. METHODS: A single operator randomly placed two restorations in each of 33 patients: one restoration consisting of Alert (Jeneric/Pentron, Wallingford, Conn.) and the other consisting of SureFil (Dentsply/Caulk, Milford, Del.). There were 30 Class I and 36 Class II restorations. Two independent evaluators evaluated the restorations by using modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria. The authors analyzed data by means of the Fisher, chi(2) and McNemar tests at P < .05. RESULTS:Of 60 restorations evaluated at five years, two Class II restorations (one SureFil, one Alert) failed. All other restorations received the highest score possible for sensitivity and vitality. The only difference between the composites at the five-year recall was the significantly better surface texture of SureFil. The authors observed significantly different scores between the baseline and at five years for marginal discoloration (Alert and SureFil), surface texture (Alert and SureFil) and color (SureFil). CONCLUSIONS: Both packable resin-based composites showed excellent durability during the five-year follow-up. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The investigated resin-based composites are suitable for posterior restorations.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Research has suggested that packable resin-based composites inserted with a placement technique similar to amalgam condensation can reduce the sensitivity associated with posterior restorations. The authors evaluated the clinical performance, including associated sensitivity, of two packable composites in a randomized five-year clinical trial. METHODS: A single operator randomly placed two restorations in each of 33 patients: one restoration consisting of Alert (Jeneric/Pentron, Wallingford, Conn.) and the other consisting of SureFil (Dentsply/Caulk, Milford, Del.). There were 30 Class I and 36 Class II restorations. Two independent evaluators evaluated the restorations by using modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria. The authors analyzed data by means of the Fisher, chi(2) and McNemar tests at P < .05. RESULTS: Of 60 restorations evaluated at five years, two Class II restorations (one SureFil, one Alert) failed. All other restorations received the highest score possible for sensitivity and vitality. The only difference between the composites at the five-year recall was the significantly better surface texture of SureFil. The authors observed significantly different scores between the baseline and at five years for marginal discoloration (Alert and SureFil), surface texture (Alert and SureFil) and color (SureFil). CONCLUSIONS: Both packable resin-based composites showed excellent durability during the five-year follow-up. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The investigated resin-based composites are suitable for posterior restorations.
Authors: N J M Opdam; F H van de Sande; E Bronkhorst; M S Cenci; P Bottenberg; U Pallesen; P Gaengler; A Lindberg; M C D N J M Huysmans; J W van Dijken Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2014-07-21 Impact factor: 6.116