Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for a period of 3 years

Quintessence International

Volumn 36, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 365-372

  Türkün, L Şebnem ^a   Türkün, Murat ^a   Özata, Ferit ^a  

^a EGE UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Clinical performance; Packable resin composite; Ryge's criteria

Indexed keywords

PHOSPHORIC ACID; RESIN;

ADULT; ANATOMY; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPOSITE MATERIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENTAL CARE; DENTAL CARIES; DENTIN SENSITIVITY; ENAMEL; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PARAMETER; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; REACTION TIME; SAMPLE SIZE; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; SURFACE PROPERTY; TOOTH COLOR; TREATMENT FAILURE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; BICUSPID; COMPOSITE RESINS; DENTAL CARIES; DENTAL RESTORATION FAILURE; DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; MOLAR;

EID: 17544382279     PISSN: 00336572     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Christensen GJ. Amalgam vs composite resin. J Am Dent Assoc 1998;129:1757-1759.
2. Lacy AM. A critical look at posterior composite restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1987;114:357-361.
3. Fukushima M, Nakamaha T, Ishizaki H, Okomoto A, Iwaku M. Three-year clinical study of resin composites with different monomer types [abstract 2179]. J Dent Res 1996;75:290.
4. Geurtsen W, Schoeler U. A 4-year retrospective clinical study of Class I and Class II composite restorations. J Dent 1997;25:229-232.
5. Miyazaki M, Onose H, Moore K. Effect of operator variability on dentin bond strength of two-step bonding systems. Am J Dent 2000;13:101-104.
6. Da Cunha Mello FS, Feilzer AJ, DeGee AJ, Davidson CL. Sealing ability of eight resin bonding systems in a Class II restoration after mechanical fatiguing. Dent Mater 1997;13:372-376.
7. Jackson RD, Morgan M. The new posterior resins and a simplified placement technique. J Am Dent Assoc 2000;131:375-383.
8. Leinfelder KF, Bayne SC, Swift EJ Jr. Packable composites: Overview and technical considerations. J Esthet Dent 1999;11:234-249.
9. Freedman G. Condensable composites: The new paradigm in amalgam alternatives. Dent Today 1998;17(10):72-74.
10. Hoang A, Koh S, Bebermeyer R, Johnson C. A review of condensable composite. J Gt Houst Dent Soc 1999;71:15-17.
11. Leinfelder K, Prassad A. A new condensable composite for the restoration of posterior teeth. Dent Today 1998;17:112-116.
12. SureFil Product Profile 1998. Dentsply UK, Addlestone, Weybridge, United Kingdom.
13. Combe EC, Burke FJ. Contemporary resin-based composite materials for direct placement restorations: Packables, flowables and others. Dent Update 2000;27:326-336.
14. Perry RD, Kugel G. Two-year clinical evaluation of a high-density posterior restorative material. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2000;21(12):1067-1072.
15. Loguercio AD, Reis A, Rodrigues Filho LE, Busato AL. One-year clinical evaluation of posterior packable resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 2001;26(5):427-434.
16. Ernst CP, Martin M, Stuff S, Willershausen B. Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for posterior teeth after 3 years. Clin Oral Invest 2001;5(3):148-155.
17. Oberlander H, Miller KA, Thonemann B, Schmalz G. Clinical evaluation of packable composite resins in Class II restorations. Clin Oral Investig 2001;5(2):102-107.
18. Türkün LŞ,Türkün M, Özata F. 2-year clinical evaluation of a packable resin composite. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134;1205-1212.
19. Ryge G, Snyder M. Evaluating the clinical quality of restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1973;87:369-377.
20. Klinge S, Schmidt G, Frankenberger R, Pelka M. Clinical behavior of Solitaire: 1 -year results [abstract 332]. J Dent Res 2000;79:185.
21. Türkün LŞ, Aktener BO. Twenty-four month clinical evaluation of different posterior composite resin materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2001;132:196-203.
22. Rasmusson CG, Kohler B, Odman P. A 3-year clinical evaluation of two composite resins in Class II cavities. Acta Odontol Scand 1998;56:70-75.
23. American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs: ADA Council on Dental Benefit Programs. Statement on posterior composites. JADA 1998;129:1627-1628.
24. Raskin A, Setcos JC, Vreven J, Wilson NHF. Influence of the isolation method on the 10-year clinical behaviour of posterior resin composite restorations. Clin Oral Invest 2000;4:148-152.
25. Suzuki M, Davidson D, Stockton L. Four-year clinical evaluation of a packable composite resin in posterior dentition [abstract 2362]. J Dent Res 2003;82(Spec Issue B):306.
26. Burke FJT, Wilson NHF, Cheung SW, Mjör IA. Influence of patient factors on age of restorations at failure and reasons for their placement and replacement. J Dent 2001:29:317-324.
27. ADA Council on Scientific Affairs. Direct and indirect restorative materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134:463-471.
28. Leidal Tl. Accomplishments and expectation with posterior composite resins. In: Vanherle G, Smith DC (eds). Posterior Composite Resin Dental Restorative Materials. 3M, St Paul: 1985:541-547.
29. Mjör IA. Long term cost of restorative therapy using different materials. Scand J Dent Res 1992;100:60-65.
30. Mjör IA. Clinical longevity of amalgams and composites. IADR-Symposium, direct restorative material's longevity in first, second, and third world countries. Singapore, 30 June 1995.