30 Months Clinical Evaluation of Posterior Composite Resin Restorations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12974/2311-8695.2018.06.2Keywords:
Posterior composite, clinical evaluation.Abstract
Background/Purpose: Popularity of tooth-colored restorations increased with the development of restorative materials and dentin adhesives in the last five years. The aim of this study was to evaluate two posterior composite resins (Surefil and FiltekTM P60) for 30 months in vivo.
Materials and methods: In this study, 72 Class II restorations were placed in 62 patients. The restorations were evaluated and scored alpha according to USPHS criteria. 30 months later, the restorations were reevaluated by independent experienced examiner.
Results: Fisher Chi-Square test was used for the statistical analysis. After 30 months, both of the composite resins were found to be successful. There was no significant difference between two groups for marginal integrity, marginal leakage, abrasion resistance, surface texture, surface staining, post-operative sensitivity and seconder caries. However, Class II restorations of SureFilTM (Caulk / Dentsply, UK) were better than FiltekTM P60 (3M ESPE, USA) for interproximal contact (p<0.05).
References
Wakefield CW and Kofford KR. Advances in restorative materials. Dent Clin North Am 2001; 45: 7-27.
Christensen GJ. Sorting out the confusing array of resinbased composites in dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 1999; 130: 275-277. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1999.0179
Jackson RD and Morgan M. The new posterior resins and a simplified placement technique. J Am Dent Assoc 2000; 131: 375-383. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2000.0182
Labella R, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B and Vanherle G. Polymerization shrinkage and elasticity of flowable composites and filled adhesives. Dental Materials 1999; 15: 128-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(99)00022-6
Perdigão J. New developments in dental adhesion. Dent Clin of North Am 2007; 51: 333-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2007.01.001
Major IA and Qvist V. Marginal failures of amalgam and composite resin restorations: 8-year finding. Journal of Dentistry 1998; 26: 311-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(97)00019-5
Sarret DC. Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations. Dental Materials 2005; 21: 9-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2004.10.001
Tung FF, Estafan D and Scherer W. Microleakage of a condensable resin composite: an in vitro investigation. Quint Int 2000; 31: 430-434.
Leinfelder KF. Posterior composite resins: the materials and their clinical performance. JADA 1995; 126: 663-672. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1995.0247
Cramer NB, Stansbury JW and Bowman CN. Recent Advances and Developments in Composite Dental Restorative Materials. J Dent Res 2011; 90(4): 402-416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034510381263
Craig RG and Powers JM. Restorative dental materials. 11th Ed. St. Louis: The C.V. Mosby Co 2002; 231-257.
Hashemikamangar SS, Pourhashemi SJ, Talebi M, Kiomarsi N and Kharazifard MJ. Effect of organic acids in dental biofilm on microhardness of a silorane-based composite. Restor Dent Endod 2015; 40(3): 188-194. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2015.40.3.188
Asmussen E. Softening of BISGMA-based polymers by ethanol and by organic acids of plaque. Scandanavian J Dent Res 1984; 92: 257-261. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.1984.tb00889.x
McKinney JE and Wu W. Chemical softening and wear of dental composites. J Dent Res 1985; 64:1326-1331. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345850640111601
Yap AUJ, Low JS and Ong LFKL. Effect of food-simulating liquids on surface characteristics of composite and polyacidmodified composite restoratives. Oper Dent 2000; 25: 170- 176.
Collins CY, Bryant RW and Hodge KLV. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite resin restorations: 8- year findings. J Dent 1998; 26: 311-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(97)00019-5
Gaengler P, Hoyer I and Montag R. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: The 10-year report. J Adhesive Dent 2001; 3: 1285-1294.
Köhler B, Rasmusson CG and Odman P. A five- year clinical evaluation of class 2 composite resin restorations. J Dent 2000; 28: 111-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(99)00059-7
Kelsey WP, Latta MA, Shaddy RS and Stanislav CM. Physical properties of three packable resin-composite restorative materials. Oper Dent 2000; 25: 331-335.
Amore R, Pagani C, Youssef MN, Anacuate NC and Lewgoy HR. Polymerization shrinkage evaluation of three packable composite resins using a gas pycnometer. Pesqui Odontol Bras 2003; 17: 273-277. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-74912003000300013
Bala O, Üçtaşli B and UÅNnlü I. The leakage of class II cavities restored with packable resin–based composites. J Contemp Dent Pract 2003; 4: 1-11.
Ernst CS, Martin M, Stuff S and Willershausen B. Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for posterior teeth after 3 years. Clin Oral Invest 2001; 5: 148-155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007840100117
Geurtsen W. Schoeler UA. 4 year retrospective clinical study of class I and Class II composite restorations. J Dent 1997; 25: 229-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(96)00027-9
Cunha RF. A thirty months clinical evaluation of a posterior composite resin in primary molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2000; 24: 113-115.
Berkowitz G, Spielman H, Matthews A, Vena D, Craig R, et al. Postoperative hypersensitivity and its relationship to preparation variables in Class I resin-based composite restorations: findings from the practitioners engaged in applied research and learning (PEARL) Network. Part 1. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2013; 34(3): 44-52.
Perry RD and Kugel G. Two- year clinical evaluation of a high- density posterior restorative material. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2000; 21: 1067-1072.
Lopes GC, Baratieri LN, Monteiro S and Vieira LCCV. Effect of posterior resin composite placement technique on the resin-dentin interface formed in vivo. Quintessence Int 2004; 35: 2.
