The Journal of the American Dental Association
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 137, No 1, 71-80.
© 2006 American Dental Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sarrett, D. C.
Right arrow Articles by Rose, J. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sarrett, D. C.
Right arrow Articles by Rose, J. T.
Related Collections
Right arrow Restoratives

RESEARCH

JADA Continuing Education

Clinical performance evaluation of a packable posterior composite in bulk-cured restorations



David C. Sarrett, DMD, MS, Carol N. Brooks, DDS and Jennifer T. Rose, DDS

Background. The authors evaluated the clinical performance of Prodigy Condensable (Kerr, Orange, Calif.) composite placed and cured in increments up to 5 millimeters thick.

Methods. The authors placed 57 Class II restorations in 32 patients in composite increments up to 5 mm thick. Using this technique, they placed the majority of restorations in one increment and then carved the occlusal and proximal anatomy before light curing. The authors evaluated the restorations at three, six, 12, 24 and 36 months.

Results. No restorations required replacement; however, 11 developed a defect requiring repair or continued observation. Of these 11, nine restorations developed defects on the margins of the restorations and two developed secondary caries. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of probability that a restoration would develop a defect during 36 months that would require immediate repair was 0.13. Postoperative sensitivity was not significantly different from preoperative sensitivity.

Conclusions. The authors found that no restorations required replacement and no increased postoperative sensitivity occurred.

Clinical Implications. The authors suggest that this composite material can be placed in a single increment up to 5 mm thick for Class II restorations.

Key Words: Dental restorations; resin-based composite; light curing; posterior restorations







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright©1995-2006 American Dental Association (ADA).
Reproduction or republication strictly prohibited without prior written permission of ADA.