The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 4 ( May, 2008 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

One Year Clinical Evaluation of Two Different Types of Composite Resins in Posterior Teeth

Ranuifo Gianordoli Neto, Sérgio Lima Santiago, Juliano Sartori Mendonça, Vanara Florëncio Passos, José Roberto Pereira Lauris, Maria Fidela de Lima Navarro

Citation Information : Neto RG, Santiago SL, Mendonça JS, Passos VF, Lauris JR, de Lima Navarro MF. One Year Clinical Evaluation of Two Different Types of Composite Resins in Posterior Teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008; 9 (4):26-33.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-9-4-26

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-05-2008

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2008; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical performance of two adhesive restorative systems (Single Bond/Filtek P-60 and Single Bond/Filtek Z-250) in posterior teeth using a modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) system.

Methods and Materials

A total of 70 restorations were placed in molars and premolars in 30 patients (14 females and 16 males; 18-40 years) by one operator. All restorations were directly evaluated by two examiners at baseline, six months, and 12 months using the following modified USPHS rating criteria: marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, surface texture, contour, postoperative sensitivity, and recurrent caries.

Results

At six and 12 months all restorations were available for evaluation of marginal discoloration, surface texture, contour, postoperative sensitivity, and recurrent caries that remained with 100% Alpha-ratings at recalls for both restorative systems. Marginal integrity for P-60 was scored as 94.3% and 91.4% Alpha at six and 12 months, respectively, and rates for Z-250 were 100% and 97.1% Alpha at six and 12 months, respectively. Statistical analysis was completed with Fisher's exact and McNemar Chi-square tests at a significance level of 5% (P<0.05).

Conclusion

All restorations were clinically satisfactory and no significant differences were found among them.

Clinical Significance

Posterior resin composite restorations placed under appropriate conditions provide a satisfactory clinical performance.

Citation

Gianordoli Neto R, Santiago SL, Mendonça JS, Passos VF, Lauris RP, Navarro MFdeL. One Year Clinical Evaluation of Two Different Types of Composite Resins in Posterior Teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 May; (9)4:026-033.


PDF Share
  1. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to inamel surfaces. J Dent Res. 1955; 34:849.
  2. A report on a new condensable composite resin. Compend Cont Oral Epidemiol, 1999; 27:230-237.
  3. Clinical evaluation of two “packable” posterior composite resins two-year results. Clin Oral Invest. 2003; 7:123-128.
  4. Clinical evaluation of two packable posterior composites: 2-year follow-up. Clin Oral Invest. 2006; 10:197-203.
  5. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings. Journal of Dentistry. 2005:935:1-9.
  6. Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth. Clin Oral Invest. 2003:7:63-70.
  7. Influence of Resin Composite Shade and Location of the Gingival Margin on the Microleakage of Posterior Restorations. Oper Dent. 2006: 31(5):556-561.
  8. A 3-year clinical evaluation of two composite resins in class-II cavities. Acta Odontol Scand. 1998; 56:70-75.
  9. Clinical and SEM study of Tetric resin composite in posterior teeth: 12-month results. Am J Dent. 1994; 7:27-30.
  10. A five-year clinical evaluation of Class II composite resin restorations. J Dent. 2000; 28:111-116.
  11. Twenty-four-month clinical evaluation of different posterior composite resin materials. J Am Dent Assoc. 2001; 132:196-203.
  12. Effect of gap dimension on wear resistance of luting agents. Am J Dent. 1995; 8:149-151.
  13. Wear rates of posterior composite resins. J Am Dent Assoc. 1986; 112:829-833.
  14. Two-year clinical study of composite resins in posterior teeth. Dent Mater. 1986; 2:37-41.
  15. Degradation of microfilled posterior composite. Dent Mater. 1992; 8:185-189.
  16. Council on Scientific affairs. Acceptance program guidelines. Restorative Materials 1996;p. 1-9.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.