HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 134, No 9, 1205-1212. © 2003 American Dental Association

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by TÜRKÜN, L. S. Articles by ÖZATA, F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by TÜRKÜN, L. S. Articles by ÖZATA, F. Related Collections Restoratives

JADA Continuing Education

L. EBNEM TÜRKÜN, D.D.S., Ph.D., MURAT TÜRKÜN, D.D.S., Ph.D. and FERIT ÖZATA, D.D.S., Ph.D.

Background. Packable resin-based composites were introduced in 1998, but few clinical studies have been conducted to evaluate them. The authors conducted a clinical study to determine the two-year performance of SureFil (Dentsply DeTrey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany) packable posterior resin-based composite in Class I and II restorations.

Methods. An operator (L..T.) restored 55 cavities in 36 patients (16 Class I restorations and 39 Class II restorations). After cavity preparation, she etched the enamel with 34 percent phosphoric acid, applied Prime & Bond NT (Dentsply DeTrey GmbH) to dentin and etched enamel for 20 seconds and then cured it for 20 seconds. She restored the cavity using 3-to 5-millimeter increments of SureFil. Independent examiners assessed the restorations after placement and at six months, one year and two years for color matching, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, surface texture, anatomical form and postoperative sensitivity, using the Ryge criteria.

Results. The authors assessed the changes in the parameters during the two-year period using a software program with Friedman test analysis with a Bonferroni adjustment at significant level of P = .05. At baseline, 31 restorations were graded as Bravo for color match. At the six-month and one-year recall periods (n = 55), 53 restorations remained unchanged. Two restorations from the same patient fell out after one month. After two years (n = 50), there were five Bravos for surface staining and three for marginal adaptation (P < .05).

Conclusion. After two years of clinical service, SureFil packable resin-based composite had a success rate of 96 percent, and the authors considered it successful in Class I and II restorations.

Clinical Implications. SureFil packable resin-based composite can be successful in clinical situations with limited-sized cavities and proper application of restorative techniques.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. C. Sarrett, C. N. Brooks, and J. T. Rose Clinical performance evaluation of a packable posterior composite in bulk-cured restorations J Am Dent Assoc, January 1, 2006; 137(1): 71 - 80. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. C.M. POON, R. J. SMALES, and K. H.-K. YIP Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid posterior resin-based composites: Results at 3.5 years J Am Dent Assoc, November 1, 2005; 136(11): 1533 - 1540. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]