Clinical Evaluation of a Nanofilled Composite in Posterior Teeth: 12-month Results

2006 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 409-417 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Dresch ◽  
S. Volpato ◽  
J. C. Gomes ◽  
N. R. Ribeiro ◽  
A. Reis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Posterior Teeth

Clinical Relevance Nanofilled resin composite showed excellent clinical performance, similar to microhybrid and packable composites after 12-months.

Comparative Clinical Evaluation of Different Treatment Approaches Using a Microfilled Resin Composite and a Compomer in Class III Cavities: Two-year Results

10.2341/07-34 ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Demirci ◽  
E. Yildiz ◽  
Ö Uysal
Keyword(s):  
Phosphoric Acid ◽  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Class Iii ◽  
Acid Pretreatment ◽  
Treatment Approaches ◽  
Handling Characteristics

Clinical Relevance For two years, the three restoration/adhesive combinations used in this study (Dyract AP/Prime & Bond NT with NRC pretreatment, Dyract AP/Prime & Bond NT with phosphoric acid pretreatment and Filtek A110/Single Bond) exhibited very good clinical performance in Class III cavities. Clinically simplified systems and handling characteristics of materials may effect their clinical performance.

Clinical Performance and Wear Resistance of Two Compomers in Posterior Occlusal Restorations of Permanent Teeth: Six-Year Follow-up

10.2341/06-71 ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 118-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. G. Lund ◽  
F. P. Sehn ◽  
E. Piva ◽  
D. Detoni ◽  
F. R. R. Moura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Wear Resistance ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Occlusal Surface ◽  
Permanent Teeth ◽  
Posterior Teeth

Clinical Relevance The restoration quality has decreased and the wear increased for two compomers placed in the occlusal surface of permanent posterior teeth after six years; however, the restorations were clinically acceptable at the end of the evaluation.

Clinical Comparison of Bur- and Laser-prepared Minimally Invasive Occlusal Resin Composite Restorations: Two-year Follow-up

2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 500-507 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. R. Yazici ◽  
M. Baseren ◽  
J. Gorucu
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Promising Alternative ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Clinical Comparison ◽  
Prepared Composite

Clinical Relevance The laser could be a promising alternative for minimally invasive occlusal resin composite cavity preparations, as its clinical performance was similar to bur-prepared composite restorations.

Clinical Evaluation of Indirect Composite Restorations at Baseline and 36 Months After Placement

2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Dukic ◽  
O. L. Dukic ◽  
S. Milardovic ◽  
B. Delija
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Good Choice ◽  
Hybrid Resin ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Clinical Difference ◽  
Indirect Composite

Clinical Relevance Indirect resin composite restorations represent a good choice for the therapy of severely damaged teeth. There is no clinical difference between Ormocer and nano-hybrid resin composite after 36 months.

Clinical Evaluation of a Two-step Etch&Rinse and a Two-step Self-etch Adhesive System in Class II Restorations: Two-year Results

2009 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 656-663 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. B. Ermis ◽  
O. Kam ◽  
E. U. Celik ◽  
U. B. Temel
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Self Etch

Clinical Relevance The two-step etch&rinse and the two-step self-etch adhesive systems tested in this study demonstrated similar clinical performance in Class II cavities after two years.

Clinical Evaluation of Noncarious Cervical Lesions of Different Extensions Restored With Bulk-fill or Conventional Resin Composite: Preliminary Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. E11-E20
Author(s):  
AMO Correia ◽  
ALB Jurema ◽  
MR Andrade ◽  
ALS Borges ◽  
E Bresciani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Resin Composites ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Intergroup Comparison ◽  
Significant Difference

SUMMARY Purpose: This randomized clinical trial evaluated the influence of the occlusogingival distance (OGD) of noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) on the clinical performance of a regular bulk-fill resin composite and a regular nanofilled resin composite. Methods and Materials: A total of 140 restorations were randomly placed in 77 participants by one operator. NCCLs were divided into four groups (n=35) according to OGD (1.5 mm±10% or 3 mm±10%) and resin composites (Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior [B] or Filtek Z350 XT [C]) used: 1.5 mm-B, 1.5 mm-C, 3 mm-B, and 3 mm-C. A two-step self-etch adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond) was applied following manufacturer instructions in all restorative procedures. Restorations were polished 1 week after placement. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline (7 days), 6 months, and 1 year by two calibrated examiners, according to the modified US Public Health Service criteria evaluating fractures/retention, marginal staining, marginal adaptation, recurrence of caries, anatomic form, postoperative sensitivity, and surface texture. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for intergroup comparison in each follow-up; the Friedman analysis of variance, followed by the least significant difference test (multiple comparisons) was used for intragroup comparison between baseline and follow-up times (α=0.05). Results: Two restorations were lost at 12 months (1 for 1.5 mm-B and 1 for 3 mm-B). The retention rates at 12 months were 100% for 1.5 mm-C, 97% for 1.5 mm-B, 100% for 3 mm-C; and 97% for 3 mm-B, with no statistical difference among the groups (p=0.570). At 12 months, a statistically significant difference was found among the follow-up times for the same group (1.5 mm-B, 1.5 mm-C, and 3 mm-B) regarding the marginal staining criterion; moreover, the 3 mm-C group showed a significant difference from 6 months. No significant difference was found for the other parameters. Conclusion: Both resin composites showed acceptable clinical performance, and the OGD of NCCLs did not influence the clinical performance of resin composite restorations after 12 months.

Survival rates of resin composite restorations in loadbearing situations in posterior teeth

Dental Update ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (6) ◽  
pp. 524-536 ◽  
Author(s):  
F J Trevor Burke ◽  
Louis Mackenzie ◽  
Adrian CC Shortall
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Medline Search ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Amalgam Restorations

The use of resin composite for routine restoration of cavities in posterior teeth is now commonplace, and will increase further following the Minamata Agreement and patient requests for tooth-coloured restorations in their posterior teeth. It is therefore relevant to evaluate the published survival rates of such restorations. A Medline search identified 144 possible studies, this being reduced to 24 when inclusion criteria were introduced. Of these, ten directly compared amalgam and composite, eight were cohort studies, and six were systematic reviews. It was concluded that posterior composites may provide restorations of satisfactory longevity and with survival rates generally similar to those published on amalgam restorations. However, the ability of the operator in placing the restoration may have a profound effect. CPD/Clinical Relevance: With the increasing use of composite for restorations in posterior teeth, it is relevant to note that these may provide good rates for survival.

Clinical Evaluation of Resin-based Composites in Posterior Restorations: Two-year Results

2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 397-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Arhun ◽  
C. Celik ◽  
K. Yamanel
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Resin Composites ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Posterior Restorations ◽  
Self Etch

Clinical Relevance Nanohybrid and low-shrinkage posterior resin composites, placed with self-etch adhesive systems in posterior teeth, showed satisfactory and similar results after two years.

Ceramics in dentistry: which material is appropriate for the anterior or posterior Dentition? Part 1: materials science

Dental Update ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 48 (8) ◽  
pp. 680-688
Author(s):  
Loo Chien Win ◽  
Peter Sands ◽  
Stephen J Bonsor ◽  
FJ Trevor Burke
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Properties ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Physical Properties ◽  
Ceramic Material ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Materials Science ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Ceramic Materials ◽  
Posterior Teeth

The large choice of ceramic materials for an indirect restoration has given clinicians a dilemma when choosing a suitable ceramic for restorations in anterior or posterior teeth. Focusing principally on the most commonly used materials, lithium disilicate and zirconia, the aim of Part 1 of this article is to compare the mechanical properties and aesthetics of these two materials. For strength, zirconia possesses superior physical properties when compared with lithium disilicate. However, in terms of aesthetics, lithium disilicate holds advantages. With both materials having different microstructures, the same cementation protocols cannot be used. Other contemporary ceramic materials are briefly reviewed. Part 2 reviews the latest clinical research on their clinical performance. CPD/Clinical Relevance: Awareness of which ceramic material performs optimally on anterior and posterior teeth is clinically important.

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

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 26-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ranuifo Gianordoli Neto ◽  
Sérgio Lima Santiago ◽  
Juliano Sartori Mendonça ◽  
Vanara Florëncio Passos ◽  
José Roberto Pereira Lauris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Surface Texture ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Marginal Integrity ◽  
Different Types ◽  
One Year ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document