Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2A–B.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abdalla AL, Alhadainy HA (1996) 2-year clinical evaluation of class I posterior composites. Am J Dent 9:150–52

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. American Dental Association (ADA) (1996) Acceptance program guidelines—Restorative materials. 1–10. http://www.ada.org/prof/prac/stands/restmat.pdf. Cited Mar 1996

  3. Council On Dental Materials, Instruments And Equipment (1985) Visible light-cured composites and activating units. J Am Dent Ass 100:100–3

    Google Scholar 

  4. Duke ES (2000) Packable composites for posterior clinical applications. Comped Cont Educ 21:604–5

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ernst CP, Buhtz C, Rissing C, Willershausen B (2002) Clinical performance of resin composite restorations after 2 years. Compend Contin Educ Dent 23:716–7

    Google Scholar 

  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 5:148–55

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Goracci G, Mori G, Casa de' Martins L (1996) Curing light intensity and marginal leakage of rein composite restorations. Quint Int 27:355–62

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kanca J, Suh BI (1999) Pulse activation: reducing resin-based composite contraction stress at the enamel cavosurface margins. Am J Dent 12:107–12

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Freedman G (1998) Condensable composites: The new paradigm in amalgam alternatives. Dent Today 17:72–4

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Irie M, Suzuki K (2002) Effects of delayed polishing on gap formation of cervical restorations. Oper Dent 27:59–65

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kelsey WP, Latta MA, Shaddy RS, Stanislav CM (2000) Physical properties of three packable resin-composite restorative materials. Oper Dent 225:331–5

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kerr (1998) Product profile – Prodigy Condensable – Scientific documentation, Kerr Dental Material Center, Orange, CA, USA

  13. Kohler B, Rasmusson CG, Odman P (2000) A five-year clinical evaluation of Class II composite resin restorations. J Dent 28:111–6

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Leinfelder KF, Prassad A (1998) A new condensable composite for the restoration of posterior teeth. Dent Today 17:112–16

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lundin AS, Koch G (1999) Class I and II posterior composite resin restorations after 5 and 10 years. Swed Dent J 23:165–71

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mair LH (1998) Ten-year clinical assessment of three posterior resin composites and two amalgams. Quint Int 29:483–90

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Manhart J, Kunzelmann KW, Chen HY, Rickel R (2000) Mechanical properties and wear behavior of light-cured packable composite resins. Dent Mater 16:33–40

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mazer RB, Leinfelder KF (1992) Evaluation of a microfill posterior composite resin. A five-year study. J Amer Dent Ass 123:33–38

    Google Scholar 

  20. Miyazaki M, Sato M, Onose H (2000) Durability of enamel bond strength of simplified bonding systems. Oper Dent 25:75–80

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Oberländer H, Hiller K-A, Thonemann B, Schmalz G (2001) Clinical evaluation of packable composite resins in class-II restorations. Clin Oral Invest 5:102–07

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 11:229–34

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 10:141–46

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Perry R, Kugel G, Leinfelder KF (1999) One-year clinical evaluation of SureFil packable composite. Compend Cont Educ 20:544–53

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 1:19–26

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Roulet J-F (1997) Longevity of glass ceramic inlays and amalgam – results up to 6 years. Clin Oral Invest 1:40–46

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Ryge G (1980) Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 30:347–58

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 14:295–96

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Turkun LS, Aktener BO (2001) Twenty-four-month clinical evaluation of different posterior composite resin materials. J Am Dent Assoc 132:196–203

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wassell RW, Walls AWG, McCabe JF (2000) Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: 5-year follow-up. J Dent 28:375–82

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 27:423–9

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was generously supported by Degussa Dental and Kerr.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Operative Dentistry, Bauru Dental School – University of São Paulo, Al. Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla 9-75, 17012-901, Bauru-SP, Brasil

    L. G. Lopes, D. F. G. Cefaly, E. B. Franco, R. F. L. Mondelli, J. R. P. Lauris & M. F. L. Navarro

Authors
  1. L. G. Lopes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. F. G. Cefaly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. B. Franco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. F. L. Mondelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. R. P. Lauris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. F. L. Navarro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. F. L. Navarro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lopes, L.G., Cefaly, D.F.G., Franco, E.B. et al. Clinical evaluation of two "packable" posterior composite resins: two-year results. Clin Oral Invest 7, 123–128 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-003-0218-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-003-0218-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation