Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Two-year clinical performance of a packable posterior composite with and without a flowable composite liner

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

Abstract

The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a packable fine hybrid dental composite (Prodigy Condensable) and the influence of the additional application of a flowable resin composite (Revolution, SDS Kerr) layer on marginal integrity after 2 years in stress-bearing posterior cavities according to the Ryge criteria. In 50 patients (40.5±17.5 years of age), 116 class II fillings (metal matrix system, glass ionomer-cement-base in 36%, rubberdam isolation in 70%) were placed, with at least two restorations per patient. The adhesive Optibond Solo Plus was used for all the restorations. In one of the two fillings in each patient, an additional layer of the flowable composite Revolution was applied in the entire cavity and separately light-cured. Baseline scores have been rated Alfa in ≥95% and Bravo in <5%. After 2 years, the results [%] of the Ryge evaluation for the two groups with/without the additional use of Revolution were: (1) Marginal Adaptation: Alfa:78/70, Bravo:16/27, Charlie:0/0, Delta:6/4; (2) Anatomic Form: Alfa:89/95, Bravo:6/2, Charlie:6/4; (3) Secondary Caries: Alfa:98/100, Bravo:2/0; (4) Marginal Discoloration: Alfa:76/68, Bravo:24/32, Charlie:0/0; (5) Surface: Alfa:90/91, Bravo:4/5, Charlie:0/0, Delta:6/4; (6) Color Match: Oscar:56/57, Alfa:44/39, Bravo:0/4, Charlie:0/0. Within the observation period (recall rate: 95%), three restorations out of 116 at baseline fractured, one restoration showed a secondary caries, one tooth received endodontic treatment, and all other restored teeth remained vital. After 2 years, no statistically significant difference (Chi-square test) in the overall survival rate between the group with the additional use of Revolution (92.8%) and that without Revolution (94.6%) was found. The combined survival rate for both groups together was 93.7% of clinically acceptable restorations.

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

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) (2001) Acceptance program guidelines—Restorative materials. 1–10: http://www.ada.org/prof/prac/stands/restmat.pdf

  3. Bayne SC, Thompson JY, Swift EJ Jr, Stamatiades P, Wilkerson M (1998) A characterization of first-generation flowable composites. J Am Dent Assoc 129:567–577

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Belli S, Inokoshi S, Ozer F, Pereira PN, Ogata M, Tagami J (2001) The effect of additional enamel etching and a flowable composite to the interfacial integrity of Class II adhesive composite restorations. Oper Dent 26:70–5

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bertolotti RL, Laamanen H (1999) Bite-formed posterior resin composite restorations, placed with a self-etching primer and a novel matrix. Quintessence Int 30:419–422

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Christensen GJ (1998) Amalgam vs. Composite resin. J Am Dent Assoc 129:1757–1759

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Da Cunha Mello FS, Feilzer AJ, DeGee AJ, Davidson CL (1997) Sealing ability of eight resin bonding systems in a Class II restoration after mechanical fatiguing. Dent Mater 13:372–376

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dietschi D, Olsburgh S, Krejci I, Davidson C (2003) In vitro evaluation of marginal and internal adaptation after occlusal stressing of indirect class II composite restorations with different resinous bases. Eur J Oral Sci 111:73–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ernst CP, Buhtz C, Rissing C, Willershausen B (2002) Clinical performance of resin composite restorations after 2 years. Compend Contin Educ Dent 23:711–14, 716–17, 720

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ernst CP, Martin M, Stuff S, Wilershausen B (2001) Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for posterior teeth after 3 years. Clin Oral Invest 5:148–155

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Farley V, Osborne PB, Davis RD, Overton JD, Vandewalle KS (2000) Cervical marginal integrity of class 2 condensable composite restorations. J Dent Res 79:281

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ferdianakis K (1998) Microleakage reduction from newer esthetic restorative materials in permanent molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent 22:221–229

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hannig M, Bott B (2000) Randschlußverhalten von plastischen zahnfarbenen Füllungen in dentinbegrenzten Klasse-II-Kavitäten. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 55:134–138

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hasegawa T, Itoh K, Koike T, Yukitani W, Hisamitsu H, Wakumoto S, Fujishima A (1999) Effect of mechanical properties of resin composites on the efficacy of the dentin bonding system. Oper Dent 24:323–30

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hickel R (1999) Zur Einführung und Verwendung neuer Füllungswerkstoffe. (Stellungnahme der DGZMK/DGZ) Zahnarztl Mitt 89:62–63

  16. Hirabayashi S, Hood JA, Hirasawa T (1993) The extent of polymerization of Class II light-cured composite resin restorations; effects of incremental placement technique, exposure time and heating for resin inlays. Dent Mater J 12:159–70

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hoang A, Koh S, Bebermeyer R, Johnson C (1999) A review of condensable composite. J Gt Houst Dent Soc 71:15-17

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Jackson RD, Morgan M (2000) The new posterior resins and a simplified placement technique. J Am Dent Assoc 131:375–383

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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 

  20. Kemp-Scholte CM, Davidson CL (1990) Complete marginal seal of Class V resin composite restorations effected by increased flexibility. J Dent Res 69:1240–1243

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kemp-Scholte CM, Davidson CL (1990) Marginal integrity related to bond strength and strain capacity of composite resin restorative systems. J Prosthet Dent 64:658–664

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Leevailoj C, Cochran MA, Matis BA, Moore BK, Platt JA (2001) Microleakage of posterior packable resin composites with and without flowable liners. Oper Dent 26:302–7

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Leinfelder K, Prassad A (1998) A new condensable composite for the restoration of posterior teeth. Dent Today 17:112–116

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Leinfelder KF, Bayne SC, Swift EJ Jr (1999) Packable composites: overview and technical considerations. J Esthet Dent 11:234–249

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mair LH (1995) Wear patterns in two amalgams and three posterior composites after 5 years' clinical service. J Dent 23:107–112

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Miyazaki M, Onose H, Moore K (2000) Effect of operator variability on dentin bond strength of two-step bonding systems. Am J Dent 13: 101–104

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Neme AM, Maxson BB, Pink FE, Aksu MN (2002) Microleakage of Class II packable resin composites lined with flowables: an in vitro study. Oper Dent 27:600–5

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Oberländer H, Hiller KA, Thonemann B, Schmalz G (2001) Clinical evaluation of packable composite resins in Class-II restorations. Clin Oral Investig 5:102–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Opdam NJ, Roeters JJ, Kuijs R, Burgersdijk RC (1998) Necessity of bevels for box only Class II composite restorations. J Prosthet Dent 80:274–9

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Payne JH (1999) The marginal seal of Class II restorations: flowable composite resin compared to injectable glass ionomer. J Clin Pediatr Dent 23:123–130

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Prager MC (1997) Using flowable composites in direct posterior restorations. Dent Today 16, 62, 64, 66–69

    Google Scholar 

  32. Price RB, Doyle G, Murphy D (2000) Effects of composite thickness on the shear bond strength to dentin. J Can Dent Assoc 66:35–9

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rasmusson CG, Lundin SA (1995) Class II restorations in six different posterior composite resins: five-year results. Swed Dent J 19:173–182

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rueggeberg FA, Caughman WF, Curtis JW Jr, Davis HC (1993) Factors affecting cure at depths within light-activated resin composites. Am J Dent 6:91–5

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ryge G (1980) Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 30:347–358

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ryge G, Snyder M (1973) Evaluation of the clinical quality of restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 87:369–377

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Takahashi A, Sato Y, Uno S, Pereira PN, Sano H (2002) Effects of mechanical properties of adhesive resins on bond strength to dentin. Dent Mater 18:263–8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by Kerr GmbH, Rastatt, Germany.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Operative Dentistry, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Augustusplatz 2, 55131, Mainz, Germany

    Claus-Peter Ernst, Kerem Canbek, Kadir Aksogan & Brita Willershausen

Authors
  1. Claus-Peter Ernst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kerem Canbek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kadir Aksogan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Brita Willershausen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claus-Peter Ernst.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ernst, CP., Canbek, K., Aksogan, K. et al. Two-year clinical performance of a packable posterior composite with and without a flowable composite liner. Clin Oral Invest 7, 129–134 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-003-0220-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-003-0220-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation