Clinical evaluation of an ormocer, a nanofill composite and a hybrid composite at 2 years

American Journal of Dentistry

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 236-240

  Efes, Begüm Güray ^a   Dörter, Can ^a   Gömeç, Yavuz ^a  

^a ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADMIRA; CALCIUM HYDROXIDE; FILTEK SUPREME; METHACRYLIC ACID DERIVATIVE; RENEW (DENTAL MATERIAL); RESIN; SILOXANE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CHEMISTRY; DENTAL CARIES; DENTAL SURGERY; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NONPARAMETRIC TEST;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CALCIUM HYDROXIDE; COMPOSITE RESINS; DENTAL CARIES; DENTAL RESTORATION FAILURE; DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; METHACRYLATES; MIDDLE AGED; SILOXANES; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC;

EID: 33748645120     PISSN: 08948275     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Leevailoj C, Cochran MA, Matis BA, Moore BK, Platt JA. Microleakage of posterior packable resin composites with and without flowable liners. Oper Dent 2001; 26: 302-307.
2. Hickel R, Heidemann D, Staehle HJ, Minnig P, Wilson NHF. Direct composite restorations. Clin Oral Invest 2004; 8: 43-44.
3. Kawaguchi M, Fukushima T, Horiba T. Effect of monomer structure on the mechanical properties of light-cured composite resin. Dent Mater 1989; 8: 40-45.
4. Brackett WW, Covey DA. Resistance to condensation of " condensable" resin composites as evaluated by mechanical test. Oper Dent 2000; 25: 600-605.
5. Voco Research and Development. Admira: A filling system based on ormocer. Technical product profile. Cuxhaven, Germany 1999; 4-11.
6. 3M Dental Products. Filtek Supreme Universal Restorative Systems. Technical Product Profile. St Paul, MN, USA. 2002; October: 5-8.
7. Abdalla AI, Davidson CL. Comparison of the marginal integrity of in vivo and in vitro class II restorations. J Dent 1993; 21:158-162.
8. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33:159-174.
9. Ryge G. Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 1980; 30:347-358.
10. Manhart J, Chen HY, Hamm G, Hickel R. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 2004; 29: 481-508.
11. Türkün LS, Türkün M, Ozata F. Two-year clinical evaluation of a packable resin-based composite. J Am Dent Assoc 2003; 134: 1205-1212.
12. Sakrana AA, Tanoue N, Kawasaki K, Matsumura H. One-year clinical evaluation of two composite materials used for anterior class V restorations. J Oral Rehabil 2004; 31: 985-990.
13. Lindberg A, van Dijken JWV, Lindberg M. 3-year evaluation of a new open sandwich technique in class II cavities. Am J Dent 2003; 16: 33-36.
14. Huth KC, Manhart J, Hickel R, Kunzelmann KH. Three-year clinical performance of a compomer in stress-bearing restorations in permanent posterior teeth. Am J Dent 2003; 16: 255-259.
15. Pereira AC, Pardi V, Mialhe FL, Meneghim MC, Ambrosano GMB. A 3-year clinical evaluation of glass-ionomer cements used as fissure sealants. Am J Dent 2003; 16:23-27.
16. American Dental Association (ADA). Acceptance program guidelines-Restorative materials 1996; 1-10.
17. Kournetas N, Chakmakchi M, Kakaboura A, Rahiotis C, Geis-Gerstofer J. Marginal and internal adaptation of Class II ormocer and hybrid resin composite restorations before and after load cycling. Clin Oral Invest 2004;8:123-129.
18. Rosin M, Steffen H, Konschake C, Greese U, Teichmann D, Hartmann A, Mayer G. One-year evaluation of an ormocer restorative a multipractise clinical trial. Clin Oral Invest 2003; 7: 20-26.
19. Oberländer H, Hiller KA, Thonemann B, Schmalz G. Clinical evaluation of packable composite resins in class-II restorations. Clin Oral Invest 2001; 5: 102-107.
20. Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN. An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2003; 134: 1382-1390.
21. Moszner N, Salz U. New developments of polymeric dental composites. Prog Polym Sci 2001; 26: 535-576.
22. Zhou M, Drummond JL, Hanley L. Barium and strontium leaching from aged glass particle/resin matrix dental composites. Dent Mater 2005; 21: 145-155.
23. Lopes LG, Cefaly DFG, Franco EB, Mondelli RFL, Lauris JRP, Navarro EB. Clinical Evaluation of two "packable" posterior composite resins: two-year results. Clin Oral Invest 2003; 7: 123-128.
24. De Souza FB, Guimaraes RP, Silva CHV. A clinical evaluation of packable and microhybrid resin composite restorations: One year report. Quintessence Int 2005; 36: 41-48.
25. Leinfelder KF. Evaluation of criteria used for assessing the clinical performance of composite resin in posterior teeth. Quintessence Int 1987; 18: 531-536.
26. Nash RW, Lowe RA, Leinfelder K. Using packable composites for direct posterior placement. J Am Dent Assoc 2001; 132: 1099-1114.
27. Feilzer AJ, de Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of the restoratives. J Dent Res 1987; 66: 1636-1639.
28. Baseren M. Surface Roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid composite resin and ormocer-based tooth colored restorative materials after finishing and polishing procedures. J Biomater Appl 2004; 19: 121-134.
29. 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 Invest 2003; 7: 129-134.