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


     

J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 140, No 4, 447-454.
© 2009 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 Fagundes, T. C.
Right arrow Articles by Navarro, M. F. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fagundes, T. C.
Right arrow Articles by Navarro, M. F. L.
Related Collections
Right arrow Restoratives

RESEARCH

JADA Continuing Education

Clinical Evaluation of Two Packable Posterior Composites

A Five-Year Follow-up



Ticiane Cestari Fagundes, DDS, MSc, PhD, Terezinha Jesus Esteves Barata, DDS, MSc, PhD, Carlos A.R. Carvalho, DDS, MSc, Eduardo B. Franco, DDS, MSc, PhD, Jan W.V. van Dijken, DDS, Odont Dr, PhD and Maria Fidela Lima Navarro, DDS, PhD

Background. Research has suggested that packable resin-based composites inserted with a placement technique similar to amalgam condensation can reduce the sensitivity associated with posterior restorations. The authors evaluated the clinical performance, including associated sensitivity, of two packable composites in a randomized five-year clinical trial.

Methods. A single operator randomly placed two restorations in each of 33 patients: one restoration consisting of Alert (Jeneric/Pentron, Wallingford, Conn.) and the other consisting of SureFil (Dentsply/Caulk, Milford, Del.). There were 30 Class I and 36 Class II restorations. Two independent evaluators evaluated the restorations by using modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria. The authors analyzed data by means of the Fisher, {chi}2 and McNemar tests at P < .05.

Results. Of 60 restorations evaluated at five years, two Class II restorations (one SureFil, one Alert) failed. All other restorations received the highest score possible for sensitivity and vitality. The only difference between the composites at the five-year recall was the significantly better surface texture of SureFil. The authors observed significantly different scores between the baseline and at five years for marginal discoloration (Alert and SureFil), surface texture (Alert and SureFil) and color (SureFil).

Conclusions. Both packable resin-based composites showed excellent durability during the five-year follow-up.

Clinical Implications. The investigated resin-based composites are suitable for posterior restorations.

Key Words: Adhesives; dental restoration; resin-based composites; randomized controlled clinical trial

Abbreviations: SiO2: Silicon dioxide.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright©1995-2009 American Dental Association (ADA).
Reproduction or republication strictly prohibited without prior written permission of ADA.