Effect of restoration size on the clinical performance of posterior "packable" resin composites over 18 months

Operative Dentistry

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 212-216

  Brackett, W W ^a,b   Browning, W D ^a   Brackett, M G ^a   Callan, R S ^a   Blalock, J S ^a  

^a MEDICAL COLLEGE OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALERT COMPOSITE RESIN; RESIN; SUREFIL PACKABLE COMPOSITE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENTAL SURGERY; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; MOLAR TOOTH; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STATISTICAL MODEL;

COMPOSITE RESINS; DENTAL RESTORATION FAILURE; DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MOLAR;

EID: 34248648789     PISSN: 03617734     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2341/06-87     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Baratieri LN & Ritter AV (2001) Four-year clinical evaluation of posterior resin-based composite restorations placed using the total-etch technique Journal of Esthetic Restorative Dentistry 13(1) 50-57.
2. Turkun LS, Aktener BO & Ates M (2003) Clinical evaluation of different posterior resin composite materials: A 7-year report Quintessence International 34(6) 418-426.
3. Busato AL, Loguercio AD, Reis A & Carrilho MR (2001) Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 6-year results American Journal of Dentistry 14(5) 304-308.
4. Wassell RW, Walls AW & McCabe JF (2000) Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: 5-year follow-up Journal of Dentistry 28(6) 375-382.
5. Poon EC, Smales RJ & Yip KH (2005) Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid posterior resin-based composites: Results at 3.5 years Journal of the American Dental Association 136(11) 1533-1540.
6. Kelsey WP, Latta MA, Shaddy RS & Stanislav CM (2000) Physical properties of three packable resin-composite restorative materials Operative Dentistry 25(4) 331-335.
7. Abe Y, Lambrechts P, Inoue S, Braem MJ, Takeuchi M, Vannerle G & Van Meerbeek B (2001) Dynamic elastic modulus of packable composites Dental Materials 17(6) 520-525.
8. Abe Y, Braem MJ, Lambrechts P, Inoue S, Takeuchi M & Van Meerbeek B (2005) Fatigue behavior of packable composites Biomaterials 26(17) 3405-3409.
9. Bouschlicher MR, Rueggeberg FA & Wilson BM (2004) Correlation of bottom-to-top surface microhardness and conversion ratios for a variety of resin composite compositions Operative Dentistry 29(6) 698-704.
10. Ernst CP, Canbek K, Aksogan K & Willershausen B (2003) Two-year clinical performance of a packable posterior composite with and without a flowable composite liner Clinical Oral Investigations 7(3) 129-134.
11. Lopes LG, Cefaly DF, Franco EB, Mondelli RF, Lauris JRP & Navarro MF (2003) Clinical evaluation of two "packable" posterior composite resins: Two-year results Clinical Oral Investigations 7(3) 123-128.
12. Turkun LS, Turkun M & Ozata F (2005) Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for a period of 3 years Quintessence International 36(5) 365-372.
13. Loguercio AD, Reis A, Hernandez PA, Macedo RP & Busato AL (2006) 3-year clinical evaluation of posterior packable composite resin restorations Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 33(2) 144-151.