Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid posterior resin-based composites: Results at 3.5 years

Journal of the American Dental Association

Volumn 136, Issue 11, 2005, Pages 1533-1540

  Poon, Eric C M ^a   Smales, Roger J ^b   Yip, Kevin H K ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

Clinical evaluation; Conventional hybrid composite; Packable composite

Indexed keywords

EID: 28144438814     PISSN: 00028177     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0083     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Yip KH, Poon BK, Chu FC, Poon EC, Kong FY, Smales RJ. Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin-based composites for posterior restorations in permanent teeth: results at 12 months. JADA 2003;134:1581-9.
2. Perry RD, Kugel G. Two-year clinical evaluation of a high-density posterior restorative material. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2000; 21:1067-76.
3. Ernst CP, Buhtz C, Rissing C, Willershausen B. Clinical performance of resin composite restorations after 2 years. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2002;23:711-24.
4. Ernst CP, Canbek K, Aksogan K, Willershausen B. Two-year clinical performance of a packable posterior composite with and without a flowable composite liner. Clin Oral Investig 2003;7(3):129-34.
5. Lopes LG, Cefaly DF, Franco EB, Mondelli RF, Lauris JR, Navarro MF. Clinical evaluation of two 'packable' posterior composite resins: two-year results. Clin Oral Investig 2003;7(3):123-8.
6. Tükün LS, Tükün M, Özata F. Two-year clinical evaluation of a packable resin-based composite. JADA 2003;134:1205-12.
7. Ryge G. Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 1980;30:347-58.
8. Mühlemann HR, Son S. Gingival sulcus bleeding: a leading symptom in initial gingivitis. Helv Odontol Acta 1971;15(2):107-13.
9. American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. ADA acceptance program guidelines: Resin-based composites for posterior restorations. Chicago: American Dental Association; 2001.
10. Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd ed. Somerset, N.J.: Wiley; 1981:212-36.
11. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall; 1991:404.
12. Wucher M, Grobler SR, Senekal PJ. A 3-year clinical evaluation of a compomer, a composite and a compomer/composite (sandwich) in Class II restorations. Am J Dent 2002;15:274-8.
13. Ferrari M, Mannocci F, Kugel G, García-Godoy F. Standardized microscopic evaluation of the bonding mechanism of NRC/Prime & Bond NT. Am J Dent 1999;12(2):77-83.
14. Rosa BT, Perdigão J. Bond strengths of nonrinsing adhesives. Quintessence Int 2000;31:353-8.
15. Pashley DH, Tay FR. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching adhesives, Part II: etching effects on unground enamel. Dent Mater 2001;17:430-44.
16. Matos AB, Tate WH, Powers JM. Influence of enamel surface preparation on composite bond strength. Am J Dent 2003;(16 special number):37A-40A.
17. Tay FR, Pashley DH, King NM, et al. Aggressiveness of self-etch adhesives on unground enamel. Oper Dent 2004;29:309-16.
18. Perry R, Kugel G, Leinfelder K. One-year clinical evaluation of SureFil packable composite. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1999;20:544-53.
19. Perry R, Kugel G, Kunzelmann KH, Flessa HP, Estafan D. Composite restoration wear analysis: conventional methods vs. three-dimensional laser digitizer. JADA 2000;131:1472-7.
20. Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Asscherickx K, et al. Do condensable composites help to achieve better proximal contacts? Dent Mater 2001;17:533-41.
21. Klein F, Keller ÁK, Staehle HJ, Dörfer CE. Proximal contact formation with different restorative materials and techniques. Am J Dent 2002;15:232-5.
22. Christensen GJ. Preventing postoperative tooth sensitivity in Class I, II and V restorations. JADA 2002;133:229-31.
23. Perdigão J, Geraldeli S, Hodges JS. Total-etch versus self-etch adhesive: effect on postoperative sensitivity. JADA 2003;134:1621-9.
24. Ferracane JL, Choi KK, Condon JR. In vitro wear of packable dental composites. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1999;25(supplement):S60-6.
25. Brackett WW, Covey DA. Resistance to condensation of 'condensable' resin composites as evaluated by a mechanical test. Oper Dent 2000;25:424-6.
26. Manhart J, Kunzelmann KH, Chen HY, Hickel R. Mechanical properties and wear behaviour of light-cured packable composite resins. Dent Mater 2000;16(1):33-40.
27. Roeder LB, Tate WH, Powers JM. Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of packable composites. Oper Dent 2000;25:534-43.
28. Aw TC, Nicholls JI. Polymerization shrinkage of densely-filled resin composites. Oper Dent 2001;26:498-504.
29. Ernst CP, Martin M, Stuff S, Willershausen B. Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for posterior teeth after three years. Clin Oral Investig 2001;5(3):148-55.
30. Oberlander H, Hiller KA, Thonemann B, Schmalz G. Clinical evaluation of packable composite resins in Class-II restorations. Clin Oral Investig 2001;5(2):102-7.
31. Burgess JO, Walker R, Davidson JM. Posterior resin-based composite: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent 2002;24:465-79.
32. Fabianelli A, Goracci C, Ferrari M. Sealing ability of packable resin composites in Class II restorations. J Adhes Dent 2003;5:217-23.
33. Tay FR, Pashley DH. Have dentin adhesives become too hydrophilic? J Can Dent Assoc 2003;69:726-31.
34. Statement on posterior resin-based composites. ADA Council on Scientific Affairs; ADA Council on Dental Benefit Programs. JADA 1998;129:1627-8.