Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 197–203 | Cite as

Clinical evaluation of two packable posterior composites: 2-year follow-up

  • T. C. Fagundes
  • T. J. E. Barata
  • E. Bresciani
  • D. F. G. Cefaly
  • M. F. F. Jorge
  • M. F. L. NavarroEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

The clinical performance of two packable posterior composites, Alert (A)—Jeneric/Pentron and SureFil™ (S)—Dentsply, was evaluated in 33 patients. Each patient received one A and one S restoration, resulting in a total of 66 restorations. The restorations were placed by one operator according to the manufacturer’s specifications and were finished and polished after 1 week. Photographs were taken at baseline and after 2 years. Two independent evaluators conducted the clinical evaluation by using modified United States Public Health Service criteria. After 2 years, 60 restorations (30 A and 30 S), 27 class I (16 A and 11 S) and 33 class II (14 A and 19 S) were evaluated in 30 patients. Criterion A for recurrent caries, vitality, and retention was applicable to all 60 restorations. Criterion B was distributed among 40 restorations as follows: surface texture (15 A; 2 S), color (5 A; 6 S), postoperative sensitivity (1 S), marginal discoloration (8 A), marginal adaptation (3 A), and wear resistance (2 A). Data were analyzed using the Exact Fisher and McNemar tests. After 2 years, S showed a significantly better performance than A with respect to surface texture and marginal discoloration. The clinical performance of both materials was considered acceptable over the 2-year period. Further evaluations are necessary for a more in-depth analysis.

Keywords

Clinical trial Composite Posterior teeth Esthetics Direct restoration 

References

  1. 1.
    Abdalla AI, Alhadainy HA (1996) 2-year clinical evaluation of class I posterior composites. Am J Dent 9:150–152PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-Sharaa KA, Watts DC (2003) Stickiness prior to setting of some light cured resin-composites. Dent Mater 19:182–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A (2005) Polymerization contraction of resin composite vs. energy and power density of light-cure. Eur J Oral Sci 113:417–421PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bayne SC, Schmalz G (2005) Reprinting the classic article on USPHS evaluation methods for measuring the clinical research performance of restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 9:209–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bayne SC, Taylor DF, Heymann HO (1992) Protection hypothesis for composite wear. Dent Mater 8:305–309PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bayne SC, Heymann HO, Swift EJ (1994) Update on dental composite restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 125:687–701PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bernhardt O, Gesch D, Splieth C, Schwahn C, Mack F, Kocher T, Meyer G, John U, Kordass B (2004) Risk factors for high occlusal wear scores in a population-based sample: results of the Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP). Int J Prosthodont 17:333–339PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blalock JS, Chan DC, Browning WD, Callan R, Hackman S (2006) Measurement of clinical wear of two packable composites after 6 months in service. J Oral Rehabil 3:59–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brunthaler A, Konig F, Lucas T, Sperr W, Schedle A (2003) Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth. Clin Oral Investig 7:63–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen HY, Manhart J, Hickel R, Kunzelmann KH (2001) Polymerization contraction stress in light-cured packable composite resins. Dent Mater 17:253–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cobb DS, MacGregor KM, Vargas MA, Denehy GE (2000) The physical properties of packable and conventional posterior resin-based composites: a comparison. J Am Dent Assoc 131:1610–1615PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Downer MC, Azli NA, Bedi R, Moles DR, Setchell DJ (1999) How long do routine dental restorations last? A systematic review. Br Dent J 187:432–439PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Duke ES (2000) Packable composites for posterior clinical applications. Compend Contin Educ Dent 21:604–605PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ernst CP, Martin M, Stuff S, Willershausen B (2001) Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for posterior teeth after 3 years. Clin Oral Investig 5:148–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ernst CP, Canbek K, Aksogan K, Willershausen B (2003) Two-year clinical performance of a packable posterior composite with and without a flowable composite liner. Clin Oral Investig 7:129–134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ferracane JL, Choi KK, Condon JR (1999) In vitro wear of packable dental composites. Compend Contin Educ Dent 25:S60–S66 (quiz S74)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hickel R, Manhart J (2001) Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent 3:45–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jacobsen T (2003) Bonding of resin to dentin. Interactions between materials, substrate and operators. Swed Dent J (160):1–66 (Suppl)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kelsey WP, Latta MA, Shaddy RS, Stanislav CM (2000) Physical properties of three packable resin-composite restorative materials. Oper Dent 25:331–335PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kohler B, Rasmusson CG, Odman P (2000) A five-year clinical evaluation of class II composite resin restorations. J Dent 28:111–116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee I-B, Son H-H, Um C-M (2003) Rheologic properties of flowable, conventional hybrid, and condensable composite resins. Dent Mater 19:298–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leinfelder KF (1996) A conservative approach to placing posterior composite restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 127:738–743Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Loguercio AD, Reis A, Rodrigues Filho LE, Busato ALS (2001) One-year clinical evaluation of posterior packable resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 26:427–434PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Loguercio AD, Reis A, Hernandez PA, Macedo RP, Busato AL (2006) 3-Year clinical evaluation of posterior packable composite resin restorations. J Oral Rehabil 33:144–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lopes LG, Cefaly DFG, Franco EB, Mondelli RFL, Lauris JRP, Navarro MFL (2002) Clinical evaluation of two “packable” posterior composite resins. Clin Oral Investig 6:79–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lopes LG, Cefaly DFG, Franco EB, Mondelli RFL, Lauris JRP, Navarro MFL (2003) Clinical evaluation of two “packable” posterior composite resins: two-year results. Clin Oral Investig 7:123–128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lutz F, Krejci I (1999) Resin composites in the post-amalgam age. Compend Contin Educ Dent 20:1138–1148PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Manhart J, Kunzelmann K-H, Chen HY, Hickel R (2000) Mechanical properties and wear behavior of light-cured packable composite resins. Dent Mater 16:33–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Manhart J, Chen HY, Hickel R (2001) The suitability of packable resin-based composites for posterior restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 132:639–645PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R (2004) Buonocore memorial lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 29:481–508PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nagem Filho H, D’Azevedo MTFS, Nagem HD, Marsola FP (2003) Surface roughness of composite resins after finishing and polishing. Braz Dent J 14:37–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Obici AC, Sinhoreti MA, de Goes MF, Consani S, Sobrinho LC (2002) Effect of the photo-activation method on polymerization shrinkage of restorative composites. Oper Dent 27:192–198PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Opdam NJ, Roeters JJ, Joosten M, Veeke O (2002) Porosities and voids in class I restorations placed by six operators using a packable or syringable composite. Dent Mater 18:58–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Perdigão J, Lopes M (1999) Dentin bonding—questions for the new millennium. J Adhes Dent 1:191–209PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Perry R, Kugel G (2000) Two-year clinical evaluation of a high-density posterior restorative material. Compend Contin Educ Dent 21:1067–1078PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Perry R, Kugel G, Leinfelder KF (1999) One-year clinical evaluation of Surefil packable composite. Compend Contin Educ Dent 20:544–553PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pigno MA, Hatch JP, Rodrigues-Garcia RC, Sakai S, Rugh JD (2001) Severity, distribution, and correlates of occlusal tooth wear in a sample of Mexican-American and European-American adults. Int J Prosthodont 14:65–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Poon EC, Smales RJ, Yip KH (2005) Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid posterior resin-based composites: results at 3.5 years. J Am Dent Assoc 136:1533–1540PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rahiotis C, Tzoutzas J, Kakaboura A (2004) In vitro marginal adaptation of high-viscosity resin composite restorations bonded to dentin cavities. J Adhes Dent 6:49–53PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Reis AF, Giannini M, Lovadino JR, Ambrosano GM (2003) Effects of various finishing systems on the surface roughness and staining susceptibility of packable composite resins. Dent Mater 19:12–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Roulet JF (1997) Benefits and disadvantages of tooth-coloured alternatives to amalgam. J Dent 25(6):459–473PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ryba TM, Dunn WJ, Murchison DF (2002) Surface roughness of various packable composites. Oper Dent 27:243–247PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ryge G (1980) Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 30:347–358PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Souza FB, Guimaraes RP, Silva CH (2005) A clinical evaluation of packable and microhybrid resin composite restorations: one-year report. Quintessence Int 36:41–48PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Taylor DF, Bayne SC, Sturdevant JR, Wilder AD (1989) Comparison of direct and indirect methods for analyzing wear of posterior composite restorations. Dent Mater 5:157–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Turkun LS, Turkun M, Ozata F (2003) Two-year clinical evaluation of a packable resin-based composite. J Am Dent Assoc 134:1205–1212PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Turkun LS, Turkun M, Ozata F (2005) Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for a period of 3 years. Quintessence Int 36:365–372PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Uno S, Asmussen E (1991) Marginal adaptation of a restorative resin polymerized at reduced rate. Scand J Dent Res 99:440–444PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    van Dijken JW (2003) A 6-year clinical evaluation of class I poly-acid modified resin composite/resin composite laminate restorations cured with a two-step curing technique. Dent Mater 19:423–428PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wilson MA, Cowan AJ, Randall RC, Crisp RJ, Wilson NHF (2002) A practice-based, randomized, controlled clinical trial of a new resin composite restorative: one-year results. Oper Dent 27:423–429PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yip KH, Poon BK, Chu FC, Poon EC, Kong FY, Smales RJ (2003) Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin-based composites for posterior restorations in permanent teeth: results at 12 months. J Am Dent Assoc 134:1581–1589PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. C. Fagundes
    • 1
  • T. J. E. Barata
    • 1
  • E. Bresciani
    • 1
  • D. F. G. Cefaly
    • 2
  • M. F. F. Jorge
    • 3
  • M. F. L. Navarro
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Operative Dentistry, Bauru School of DentistryUniversity of São PauloBauruBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Operative DentistryUniversity of North ParanáLondrinaBrazil
  3. 3.Military Police of BauruBauruBrazil

Personalised recommendations