Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Two-year evaluation of a new nano-ceramic restorative material

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

Abstract

The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a new restorative material (Ceram·X) in combination with a new primer–adhesive (K-0127). One operator placed two Class I or II restorations in molars of 43 patients. One molar was restored with Ceram·X/K-0127, the other one with Tetric Ceram/Syntac Classic. At baseline, after 1 and 2 years, the restorations were evaluated by one evaluator using modified Ryge’s criteria. After 2 years, 31 patients were examined. One Ceram·X-restoration had to be removed for root canal treatment due to pulpitis. Thus, failure rate of Ceram·X was 3.2% and of Tetric Ceram, 0%. In both groups, no sensitivity, no recurrent caries, and no changes in surface texture were recorded after 2 years. One restoration in each group showed slight changes in color stability (score B). Marginal discoloration (score B) was found concerning three Ceram·X-restorations (10.0%) and two Tetric Ceram-restoration (6.5%). Marginal integrity was score B for four Ceram·X-restorations (13.3%) and for four Tetric Ceram-restorations (12.9%). No statistically significant differences were found (p>0.05). After 2 years of clinical service, 96.8% of Ceram·X/K-0127 and 100% of Tetric Ceram/Syntac Classic restorations were in place and performed clinically well.

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. 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 9:209–214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brannstrom M (1992) Etiology of dentin hypersensitivity. Proc Finn Dent Soc 88(Suppl 1):7–13

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bryant RW, Mahler DB (1986) Modulus of elasticity in bending of composites and amalgams. J Prosthet Dent 56:243–248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cvar JF, Ryge G (2005) Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971. Clin Oral Investig 9:215–232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dietschi D, Magné P, Holz J (1994) Recent trends in esthetic restorations for posterior teeth. Quintessence Int 25:659–677

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Frankenberger R, Perdigao J, Rosa BT, Lopes M (2001) “No-bottle” vs “multi-bottle” dentin adhesives—a microtensile bond strength and morphological study. Dent Mater 17:373–380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gernhardt CR, Salhab J, Schaller HG (2001) Die Zugfestigkeit verschiedener Dentinhaftvermittler auf trockenem und perfundiertem Dentin. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 56:467–471

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hanks CT, Strawn SE, Wataha JC, Craig RG (1991) Cytotoxic effects of resin components on cultured mammalian fibroblasts. J Dent Res 70:1450–1455

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hansel C, Leyhausen G, Mai UE, Geurtsen W (1998) Effects of various resin composite (co)monomers and extracts on two caries-associated micro-organisms in vitro. J Dent Res 77:60–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hara AT, Amaral CM, Pimenta LA, Sinhoreti MA (1999) Shear bond strength of hydrophilic adhesive systems to enamel. Am J Dent 12:181–184

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hickel R, Dasch W, Janda R, Tyas M, Anusavice K (1998) New direct restorative materials. FDI Commission Project. Int Dent J 48:3–16

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hickel R, Manhart J (2001) Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent 3:45–64

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hugo B, Stassinakis A, Hofmann N, Hausmann P, Klaiber B (2001) In-vivo-Untersuchung von kleinen Klasse-II-Kompositfüllungen. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 111:11–18

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Inoue S, Vargas MA, Abe Y, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Sano H, Van Meerbeek B (2001) Microtensile bond strength of eleven contemporary adhesives to dentin. J Adhes Dent 3:237–245

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Janda R, Roulet JF, Latta M, Steffin G, Rüttermann S (2005) Color stability of resin-based filling materials after aging when cured with plasma or halogen light. Eur J Oral Sci 113:251–257

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lopes LG, Cefaly DF, Franco EB, Mondelli RF, Lauris JR, Navarro MF (2002) Clinical evaluation of two “packable” posterior composite resins. Clin Oral Investig 6:79–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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 29:481–508

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Moll K, Gartner T, Haller B (2002) Effect of moist bonding on composite/enamel bond strength. Am J Dent 15:85–90

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Moll K, Park HJ, Haller B (2002) Bond strength of adhesive/composite combinations to dentin involving total- and self-etch adhesives. J Adhes Dent 4:171–180

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nikaido T, Kunzelmann KH, Ogata M, Harada N, Yamaguchi S, Cox CF, Hickel R, Tagami J (2002) The in vitro dentin bond strengths of two adhesive systems in class I cavities of human molars. J Adhes Dent 4:31–39

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Oberländer H, Hiller KA, Thonemann B, Schmalz G (2001) Clinical evaluation of packable composite resins in Class-II restorations. Clin Oral Investig 5:102–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pashley DH, Tay FR (2001) Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching adhesives. Part II: etching effects on unground enamel. Dent Mater 17:430–444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rosin M, Steffen H, Konschake C, Greese U, Teichmann D, Hartmann A, Meyer G (2003) One-year evaluation of an Ormocer restorative—a multipractice clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 7:20–26

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rzanny A, Göbel R, Welker D (1999) Werkstoffkundlicher Vergleich zahnfarbener Füllungsmaterialien. Phillip J 16:68–71

    Google Scholar 

  27. Schoch M, Krämer N, Frankenberger R, Petschelt A (1999) Direct posterior composite restorations with a new adhesive system: one-year results. J Adhes Dent 1:167–173

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Schweikl H, Schmalz G (1999) Triethylene glycol dimethacrylate induces large deletions in the hprt gene of V79 cells. Mutat Res 438:71–78

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Soltész U (1998) Polymerisationsschrumpfung einiger neuerer Komposit-Füllungswerkstoffe. Zahnärztl Mitt 88:1404–1406

    Google Scholar 

  30. Soltész U (1999) Polymerisationsschrumpfung von “Definite”-Korrekturwerte. Zahnärztl Mitt 89:58–59

    Google Scholar 

  31. Van Dijken JW, Sunnegardh-Gronberg K (2005) A four-year clinical evaluation of a highly filled hybrid resin composite in posterior cavities. J Adhes Dent 7:343–349

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wataha JC, Rueggeberg FA, Lapp CA, Lewis JB, Lockwood PE, Ergle JW, Mettenburg DJ (1999) In vitro cytotoxicity of resin-containing restorative materials after aging in artificial saliva. Clin Oral Investig 3:144–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wolter H, Storch W, Ott H (1994) New inorganic/organic copolymers (ORMOCERS) for dental applications. Mat Res Soc Symp Proc 346:143–149

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The present study was supported by DENTSPLY DeTrey (Konstanz, Germany; investigation number: K-0127/K-0137/14.1007).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

    J. F. Schirrmeister, E. Hellwig & P. Hahn

  2. Department of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Saarland, Homburg/Saar, Germany

    K. Huber

  3. Department of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, University School and Dental Hospital, Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, Hugstetter Straße 55, D-79106, Freiburg i. Br., Germany

    J. F. Schirrmeister

Authors
  1. J. F. Schirrmeister
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. Huber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. Hellwig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. Hahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. F. Schirrmeister.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schirrmeister, J.F., Huber, K., Hellwig, E. et al. Two-year evaluation of a new nano-ceramic restorative material. Clin Oral Invest 10, 181–186 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-006-0048-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-006-0048-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation