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

J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 136, No 11, 1533-1540. © 2005 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 POON, E. C.M. Articles by YIP, K. H.-K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by POON, E. C.M. Articles by YIP, K. H.-K. Related Collections Implants

JADA Continuing Education

Results at 3.5 years

Background. The authors evaluated clinical performances of a packable and a conventional hybrid resin-based composite used with a self-etch adhesive system.

Methods. Three dentists placed 105 posterior restorations in 65 adults. They placed a packable (SureFil, Dentsply DeTrey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany) and a conventional (Spectrum^TPH, Dentsply DeTrey GmbH) resin-based composite using a self-etch resin adhesive system. The authors evaluated the restorations using Ryge modified criteria, photographs and die stone replicas.

Results. After 3.5 years, six large SureFil and two Spectrum^TPH restorations had failed from bulk fracture and secondary caries, resulting in cumulative survival rates of 81.3 and 92.0 percent, respectively. Failed SureFil restorations generally were larger than the remaining intact restorations. Other ratings were satisfactory, with no significant differences between the two materials for any restoration parameter. Alfa ratings for both materials were approximately 80 percent or greater for marginal discoloration, anatomical form, surface texture and surface staining. Lower percentages of restorations were rated Alfa for color match, marginal integrity and gingival health. No postoperative sensitivity was reported. Net mean occlusal wear (± standard deviation) was 28.9 (± 32.9) micrometers for SureFil and 33.8 (± 29.6) µm for Spectrum^TPH restorations; the difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusions. When used with a self-etch adhesive, the 3.5-year clinical performances of both composites were similar and satisfactory for the restoration of Class I and moderate-sized Class II cavities.

Clinical Implications. The two composites placed in this study have an increased risk of bulk fracture when placed in large intracoronal Class II molar preparations.

Key Words: Packable composite; conventional hybrid composite; clinical evaluation

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. C. Fagundes, T. J. E. Barata, C. A.R. Carvalho, E. B. Franco, J. W.V. van Dijken, and M. F. L. Navarro Clinical Evaluation of Two Packable Posterior Composites: A Five-Year Follow-up J Am Dent Assoc, April 1, 2009; 140(4): 447 - 454. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J.L. Drummond Degradation, Fatigue, and Failure of Resin Dental Composite Materials Journal of Dental Research, August 1, 2008; 87(8): 710 - 719. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. K. Ersin, U. Candan, A. Aykut, O. Oncag, C. Eronat, and T. Kose A clinical evaluation of resin-based composite and glass ionomer cement restorations placed in primary teeth using the ART approach: Results at 24 months. J Am Dent Assoc, November 1, 2006; 137(11): 1529 - 1536. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]