Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 123–128 | Cite as

Clinical evaluation of two "packable" posterior composite resins: two-year results

  • L. G. Lopes
  • D. F. G. Cefaly
  • E. B. Franco
  • R. F. L. Mondelli
  • J. R. P. Lauris
  • M. F. L. NavarroEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of two "packable" posterior composites: Prodigy Condensable/Optibond Solo—Kerr (PC-OS) and Definite/Etch & Prime—Degussa (D-EP). Thirty-six patients participated in this study. A total of 78 restorations (40 with D-EP and 38 with PC-OS) were made. Each patient received at least two restorations (one of each studied material). The materials were handled according to the manufacturer's instructions. The occlusal adjustments were made at the placement visit. The restorations were finished and polished after 1 week. They were evaluated at baseline, and after 1 year and 2 years by two independent evaluators using the USPHS criteria. Colored slides were made of all the restorations. After 2 years, 34 patients and 74 restorations (38 with D-EP and 36 with PC-OS) were available for evaluation. A total of 50% of PC-OS restorations received A criterion and 50% received B criterion (2.8% color, 11.1% marginal staining, 27.8% superficial staining, 2.8% anatomic form and 5.6% marginal adaptation). For D-EP, 60.5% of restorations received A criterion and 39.5% received B criterion (2.6% color, 5.3% marginal staining, 10.5% superficial staining, 7.9% anatomic form and 13.2% marginal adaptation). The C criterion was observed only for marginal adaptation with D-EP (2 restorations—5.3%). The obtained data were tabulated and statistically analyzed using the Fisher, Chi-square and McNemar tests. After 2 years, PC-OS showed a significant increase in superficial and marginal staining. For D-EP the marginal adaptation and superficial staining became significantly worse than baseline.

Keywords

Clinical trial Composite Posterior teeth Esthetics Direct restoration 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was generously supported by Degussa Dental and Kerr.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdalla AL, Alhadainy HA (1996) 2-year clinical evaluation of class I posterior composites. Am J Dent 9:150–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    American Dental Association (ADA) (1996) Acceptance program guidelines—Restorative materials. 1–10. http://www.ada.org/prof/prac/stands/restmat.pdf. Cited Mar 1996Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Council On Dental Materials, Instruments And Equipment (1985) Visible light-cured composites and activating units. J Am Dent Ass 100:100–3Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Duke ES (2000) Packable composites for posterior clinical applications. Comped Cont Educ 21:604–5Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ernst CP, Buhtz C, Rissing C, Willershausen B (2002) Clinical performance of resin composite restorations after 2 years. Compend Contin Educ Dent 23:716–7Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ernst CP, Martin M, Stuff S, Willershausen B (2001) Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for posterior teeth after 3 years. Clin Oral Invest 5:148–55Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goracci G, Mori G, Casa de' Martins L (1996) Curing light intensity and marginal leakage of rein composite restorations. Quint Int 27:355–62Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kanca J, Suh BI (1999) Pulse activation: reducing resin-based composite contraction stress at the enamel cavosurface margins. Am J Dent 12:107–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Freedman G (1998) Condensable composites: The new paradigm in amalgam alternatives. Dent Today 17:72–4Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Irie M, Suzuki K (2002) Effects of delayed polishing on gap formation of cervical restorations. Oper Dent 27:59–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kelsey WP, Latta MA, Shaddy RS, Stanislav CM (2000) Physical properties of three packable resin-composite restorative materials. Oper Dent 225:331–5Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kerr (1998) Product profile – Prodigy Condensable – Scientific documentation, Kerr Dental Material Center, Orange, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kohler B, Rasmusson CG, Odman P (2000) A five-year clinical evaluation of Class II composite resin restorations. J Dent 28:111–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leinfelder KF, Prassad A (1998) A new condensable composite for the restoration of posterior teeth. Dent Today 17:112–16Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lopes LG, Cefaly DFG, Franco EB, Mondelli RFL, Lauris JRP, Navarro MFL (2002) Clinical evaluation of two "packable" posterior composite resins. Clin Oral Invest 6:79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lundin AS, Koch G (1999) Class I and II posterior composite resin restorations after 5 and 10 years. Swed Dent J 23:165–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mair LH (1998) Ten-year clinical assessment of three posterior resin composites and two amalgams. Quint Int 29:483–90Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Manhart J, Kunzelmann KW, Chen HY, Rickel R (2000) Mechanical properties and wear behavior of light-cured packable composite resins. Dent Mater 16:33–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mazer RB, Leinfelder KF (1992) Evaluation of a microfill posterior composite resin. A five-year study. J Amer Dent Ass 123:33–38Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miyazaki M, Sato M, Onose H (2000) Durability of enamel bond strength of simplified bonding systems. Oper Dent 25:75–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oberländer H, Hiller K-A, Thonemann B, Schmalz G (2001) Clinical evaluation of packable composite resins in class-II restorations. Clin Oral Invest 5:102–07CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Opdam NJ, Feilzer AJ, Roeters JJ, Smale I (1998) Class I oclusal composite resin restorations: in vivo post-operative sensitivity, wall adaptation, and microleakage. Am J Dent 11:229–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Perdigão J, Lopes L, Lambrechts P, Leitão J, Van Meerbeek B, Vanherle G (1997) Effects of a self-etching primer on enamel shear bond strengths and SEM morphology. Am J Dent 10:141–46PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Perry R, Kugel G, Leinfelder KF (1999) One-year clinical evaluation of SureFil packable composite. Compend Cont Educ 20:544–53Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vanherle (1997) The 5-year clinical performance of direct composite additions to correct tooth form and position. Clin Oral Invest 1:19–26Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Roulet J-F (1997) Longevity of glass ceramic inlays and amalgam – results up to 6 years. Clin Oral Invest 1:40–46Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ryge G (1980) Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 30:347–58PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sahafi A, Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E (2001) Effect of pulse-delay curing on in vitro wall-to-wall contraction of composite in dentin cavity preparations. Am J Dent 14:295–96PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Turkun LS, Aktener BO (2001) Twenty-four-month clinical evaluation of different posterior composite resin materials. J Am Dent Assoc 132:196–203PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wassell RW, Walls AWG, McCabe JF (2000) Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: 5-year follow-up. J Dent 28:375–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wilson MA, Cowan AJ, Randall RC, Crisp RJ, Wilson NH (2002) A practice-based, randomized, controlled clinical trial of a new resin composite restorative: one-year results. Oper Dent 27:423–9PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. G. Lopes
    • 1
  • D. F. G. Cefaly
    • 1
  • E. B. Franco
    • 1
  • R. F. L. Mondelli
    • 1
  • J. R. P. Lauris
    • 1
  • M. F. L. Navarro
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Operative DentistryBauru Dental School – University of São PauloBauru-SPBrasil

Personalised recommendations