Literature DB >> 21762980

22-Year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics.

Paulo A Da Rosa Rodolpho1, Tiago A Donassollo, Maximiliano S Cenci, Alessandro D Loguércio, Rafael R Moraes, Ewald M Bronkhorst, Niek J M Opdam, Flávio F Demarco.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This retrospective longitudinal study investigated the longevity of posterior restorations placed in a single general practice using 2 different composites in filler characteristics and material properties: P-50 APC (3M ESPE) with 70vol.% inorganic filler loading (midfilled) and Herculite XR (Kerr) with 55vol.% filler loading (minifilled).
METHODS: Patient records were used for collecting data. Patients with at least 2 posterior composite restorations placed between 1986 and 1990, and still in the practice for regular check-up visits, were selected. 61 patients (20 male, 41 female, age 31.2-65.1) presenting 362 restorations (121 Class I, 241 Class II) placed using a closed sandwich technique were evaluated by 2 operators using the FDI criteria. Data were analyzed with Fisher's exact test, Kaplan-Meier statistics, and Cox regression analysis (p<0.05).
RESULTS: 110 failures were detected. Similar survival rates for both composites were observed considering the full period of observation; better performance for the midfilled was detected considering the last 12 years. There was higher probability of failure in molars and for multi-surface restorations. SIGNIFICANCE: Both evaluated composites showed good clinical performance over 22 years with 1.5% (midfilled) and 2.2% (minifilled) annual failure rate. Superior longevity for the higher filler loaded composite (midfilled) was observed in the second part of the observation period with constant annual failure rate between 10 years and 20 years, whereas the minifilled material showed an increase in annual failure rate between 10 years and 20 years, suggesting that physical properties of the composite may have some impact on restoration longevity.
Copyright © 2011 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21762980     DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.06.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dent Mater        ISSN: 0109-5641            Impact factor:   5.304


  47 in total

1.  A randomized double-blind clinical trial of posterior composite restorations with or without bevel: 1-year follow-up.

Authors:  Fábio Herrmann Coelho-De-Souza; Junara Cristina Camargo; Tiago Beskow; Matheus Dalmolin Balestrin; Celso Afonso Klein-Júnior; Flávio Fernando Demarco
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2012 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.698

2.  Longevity and associated risk factors in adhesive restorations of young permanent teeth after complete and selective caries removal: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Luciano Casagrande; Alejandra Tejeda Seminario; Marcos Britto Correa; Stefanie Bressan Werle; Marisa Maltz; Flávio Fernando Demarco; Fernando Borba de Araujo
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2016-04-22       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  Structure-property relationships for wet dentin adhesive polymers.

Authors:  Ranganathan Parthasarathy; Anil Misra; Linyong Song; Qiang Ye; Paulette Spencer
Journal:  Biointerphases       Date:  2018-12-17       Impact factor: 2.456

4.  Thirty-six-month clinical evaluation of posterior high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composite restorations in a high caries incidence population: interim results of a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Márcia de Almeida Durão; Ana Karina Maciel de Andrade; Amanda Maciel do Prado; Sirley Raiane Mamede Veloso; Lynn Morena Tavares Maciel; Marcos Antônio Japiassú Resende Montes; Gabriela Queiroz de Melo Monteiro
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2021-04-06       Impact factor: 3.573

5.  Glass ionomer cement inhibits secondary caries in an in vitro biofilm model.

Authors:  Norbert Krämer; Miriam Schmidt; Susanne Lücker; Eugen Domann; Roland Frankenberger
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2017-07-24       Impact factor: 3.573

6.  Clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system: a 6-year evaluation.

Authors:  Sevil Gurgan; Zeynep Bilge Kutuk; Esra Ergin; Sema Seval Oztas; Filiz Yalcin Cakir
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2016-12-20       Impact factor: 3.573

7.  No more amalgams: Use of amalgam and amalgam alternative materials in primary dental care.

Authors:  C D Lynch; D J J Farnell; H Stanton; I G Chestnutt; P A Brunton; N H F Wilson
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2018-07-27       Impact factor: 1.626

8.  Resin-based composite performance: are there some things we can't predict?

Authors:  Jack L Ferracane
Journal:  Dent Mater       Date:  2012-07-17       Impact factor: 5.304

9.  Impact of thio-urethane additive and filler type on light-transmission and depth of polymerization of dental composites.

Authors:  André Luis Faria-E-Silva; Carmem Silvia Pfeifer
Journal:  Dent Mater       Date:  2017-08-12       Impact factor: 5.304

10.  Behavior of failed bonded interfaces under in vitro cariogenic challenge.

Authors:  Anelise F Montagner; Niek J M Opdam; Jan L Ruben; Ewald M Bronkhorst; Maximiliano S Cenci; Marie-Charlotte D N J M Huysmans
Journal:  Dent Mater       Date:  2016-03-10       Impact factor: 5.304

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.