Jan W V van Dijken1, Ulla Pallesen. 1. Department of Odontology, Dental School Umeå, Faculty of Medicine, Umeå University, SE-901 87, Umeå, Sweden, Jan.van.Dijken@odont.umu.se.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to observe the durability of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations, placed with two different adhesive systems, in an 8-year follow-up. METHODS:Seventy-eight participants received at random at least two Class II restorations of the ormocer-basednanohybrid resin composite (Ceram X) bonded with either a one-step self-etch adhesive (Xeno III) or a control two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Excite). The 165 restorations were evaluated using slightly modified United States Public Health Services (USPHS) criteria at baseline and then yearly during 8 years. RESULTS:One hundred and fifty-eight restorations were evaluated after 8 years. Three participants with five restorations (three Xeno III, two Excite) were registered as dropouts. Twenty-one failed restorations (13.3%) were observed during the follow-up. Twelve in the one-step self-etch adhesive group (13.5%) and nine in the two-step etch-and-rinse group (13.0%). This resulted in nonsignificant different annual failure rates of 1.69 and 1.63%, respectively. Fracture of restoration was the main reason for failure. CONCLUSION: Good clinical performance was shown during the 8-year evaluation and no significant difference in overall clinical performance between the two adhesives. Fracture was the main reason for failure. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The one-step self-etch adhesive showed a good long-term clinical effectiveness in combination with the nanohybrid resin composite in Class II restorations.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to observe the durability of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations, placed with two different adhesive systems, in an 8-year follow-up. METHODS: Seventy-eight participants received at random at least two Class II restorations of the ormocer-based nanohybrid resin composite (Ceram X) bonded with either a one-step self-etch adhesive (Xeno III) or a control two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Excite). The 165 restorations were evaluated using slightly modified United States Public Health Services (USPHS) criteria at baseline and then yearly during 8 years. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-eight restorations were evaluated after 8 years. Three participants with five restorations (three Xeno III, two Excite) were registered as dropouts. Twenty-one failed restorations (13.3%) were observed during the follow-up. Twelve in the one-step self-etch adhesive group (13.5%) and nine in the two-step etch-and-rinse group (13.0%). This resulted in nonsignificant different annual failure rates of 1.69 and 1.63%, respectively. Fracture of restoration was the main reason for failure. CONCLUSION: Good clinical performance was shown during the 8-year evaluation and no significant difference in overall clinical performance between the two adhesives. Fracture was the main reason for failure. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The one-step self-etch adhesive showed a good long-term clinical effectiveness in combination with the nanohybrid resin composite in Class II restorations.
Authors: J C Wataha; F A Rueggeberg; C A Lapp; J B Lewis; P E Lockwood; J W Ergle; D J Mettenburg Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 3.573