Clinical evaluation methods for posterior composite restorations.

Two methods of evaluating the in vivo wear of posterior composite restorations are described and compared with the USPHS direct clinical evaluation system. The three methods were consistent among themselves and over the two years of the study. In order of increasing sensitivity, the methods were: USPHS, total ranking of models, and categorizing of models according to a set of standards. The last procedure identified statistically significant differences (p less than 0.05) between the composite formulations as early as the nine-month recall. All formulations experienced increasing wear with time, but at a decreasing rate.