Advances in dental products: Clinical performance evaluation of a packable posterior composite in bulk-cured restorations

Journal of the American Dental Association

Volumn 137, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 71-80

  Sarrett, David C ^a   Brooks, Carol M ^b   Rose, Jennifer T ^c  

^a VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NONE

Author keywords

Dental restorations; Light curing; Posterior restorations; Resin based composite

Indexed keywords

BISPHENOL A BIS(2 HYDROXYPROPYL) ETHER DIMETHACRYLATE; METHACRYLIC ACID DERIVATIVE; OPTIBOND SOLO; PRODIGY CONDENSABLE; RESIN; RESIN CEMENT;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CHEMISTRY; CLASSIFICATION; COLOR; DENTAL CARIES; DENTAL SURGERY; DENTIN SENSITIVITY; ENDODONTICS; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; ILLUMINATION; INSTRUMENTATION; MATERIALS TESTING; MIDDLE AGED; RECURRENT DISEASE; STANDARD; SURFACE PROPERTY; TOOTH PROSTHESIS;

ADULT; AGED; BISPHENOL A-GLYCIDYL METHACRYLATE; COLOR; COMPOSITE RESINS; DENTAL CARIES; DENTAL PROSTHESIS REPAIR; DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; DENTIN SENSITIVITY; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; LIGHTING; MARGINAL ADAPTATION (DENTISTRY); MATERIALS TESTING; METHACRYLATES; MIDDLE AGED; RECURRENCE; RESIN CEMENTS; SURFACE PROPERTIES;

EID: 32644451689     PISSN: 00028177     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0024     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Leinfelder KF, Bayne SC, Swift EJ Jr. Packable composites: overview and technical considerations. J Esthet Dent 1999;11(5):234-49.
2. Brunthaler A, Konig F, Lucas T, Sperr W, Schedle A. Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth. Clin Oral Investig 2003;7(2):63-70.
3. Cobb DS, MacGregor KM, Vargas MA, Denehy GE. The physical properties of packable and conventional posterior resin-based composites: a comparison. JADA 2000;131(11):1610-5.
4. Sarrett DC. Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations. Dent Mater 2005;21(1):9-20.
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. Ernst CP, Martin M, Stuff S, Willershausen B. Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for posterior teeth after 3 years. Clin Oral Investig 2001;5(3):148-55.
7. 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.
8. Loguercio AD, Reis A, Rodrigues Filho LE, Busato AL. One-year clinical evaluation of posterior packable resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 2001;26(5):427-34.
9. Perry RD, Kugel G. Two-year clinical evaluation of a high-density posterior restorative material. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2000;21(12):1067-72, 74, 76 passim; quiz 80.
10. Türkün LC, Türkün M, Ozata F. Two-year clinical evaluation of a packable resin-based composite. JADA 2003;134(9):1205-12.
11. 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(12):1581-9.
12. American Dental Association. ADA acceptance program guidelines: Resin based composites for posterior restorations. Chicago: ADA Council on Scientific Affairs; 2001.
13. Ryge G, Snyder M. Evaluating the clinical quality of restorations. JADA 1973;87(2):369-77.
14. Cvar J, Ryge G. Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. San Francisco: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, Bureau of Health Manpower Education, Division of Dental Health, Dental Health Center; 1971. U.S. Public Health Service publication 790-240.