Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer, nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorative systems in posterior teeth

Journal of Adhesive Dentistry

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 315-322

  Mahmoud, Salah Hasab ^a   El Embaby, Abeer E ^a   Abdallah, Asmaa Mohamed ^a   Hamama, Hamdi Hosni ^a  

^a Mansoura University   (Egypt)

Author keywords

Clinical evaluation; Nanofill composite; Nanohybrid composite; Ormocer

Indexed keywords

ADMIRA; DENTIN BONDING AGENT; FILTEK SUPREME; METHACRYLIC ACID DERIVATIVE; NANOCOMPOSITE; ORMOCER; RESIN; RESIN CEMENT; SILANE DERIVATIVE; SILOXANE; TETRIC EVOCERAM;

ARTICLE; CERAMICS; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENTAL SURGERY; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; MOLAR TOOTH; PREMOLAR TOOTH; PROSPECTIVE STUDY;

BICUSPID; CERAMICS; COMPOSITE RESINS; DENTAL CAVITY PREPARATION; DENTAL RESTORATION FAILURE; DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; DENTIN-BONDING AGENTS; HUMANS; METHACRYLATES; MOLAR; NANOCOMPOSITES; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RESIN CEMENTS; SILANES; SILOXANES;

EID: 51549110772     PISSN: 14615185     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Abdalla AI, Davidson CL Comparison of the marginal integrity of in vivo and in vitro class II restorations. J Dent 1993;21:158-162.
2. American Dental Association-ADA Acceptance program guidelines-Restorative materials 1996:1-10.
3. Baseren M. Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid composite resin and ormocer-based tooth-colored restorative materials after several finishing and polishing procedures. J Biomater Appl 2004;19:121-134.
4. Beun S, Glorieux T, Devaux J, Vreven J, Leloup G. Characterization of nanofilled compared to universal and microfilled composites. Dent Mater 2007;23:51-59.
5. Bottenberg P, Alaerts M, Keulemans F. A prospective randomized clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: Three-year results. J Dent 2006;7:1002-1011.
6. Busato ALS, Loguercio AD, Reis A, Carrilho MR. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 6-year results. Am J Dent 2001;14:304-308
7. Christensen GJ. Amalgam vs. composite resin. J Am Dent Assoc 1998;129:1757-1759.
8. de Gee AJ, Wendt SL, Werner A, Davidson CL. Influence of enzymes and plaque acids on in vitro wear of dental composites. Biomaterials 1996;17:1327-1332.
9. De Souza FB, Guinaraes RP, Silva CHV. A clinical evaluation of packable and microhybrid resin composite restorations: One year report. Quintessence Int 2005;36:41-45.
10. Dijken JV. Tetric EvoCeram -2-year results of a clinical study. Ivoclar Vivadent Clinical 2005.
11. Efes BG, Dorter C, Gomec Y. Clinical evaluation of an ormocer, a nanofill composite and a hybrid composite at 2 years. Am J Dent 2006;19:236-240.
12. Efes BG, Dorter C, Gomec Y, Koray F. Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer and nanofill composite with and without a flowable liner. J Adhes Dent 2006;8:119-126.
13. El-Mowafy OM, Lewis DW, Benmergui C, Levinton. Meta-analysis on longterm clinical performance of posterior composite restorations. J Dent 1994;22:33-43.
14. Ernst CP, Brandenbusch M, Meyer G, Canbek K, Gottschalk F, Willershausen B. Two-year clinical performance of a nanofiller vs a fine-particle hybrid resin composite. Clin Oral Invest 2006;10:119-125.
15. Ernst CP, Kotter T, Victor A, Canbek K, Brandenbusch M, Willershausen B. Marginal integrity of self and total etching adhesives in two different application protocols. J Adhes Dent 2004;6:25-32.
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;5:148-155.
17. Feilzer AI, de Gee AJ, Davidson CI. Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of the restoratives. J Dent Res 1987;66:1636-1639.
18. Ferracane JL, Berge HX. Fracture toughness of experimental dental composite aged in ethanol. J Dent Res 1995;74:1418-1423.
19. Gängler P, Hoyer I, Montage R. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: the 10-year report. J Adhes Dent 2001;3:185-194.
20. Geurtsen W, Schoeler U. A 4-year retrospective clinical study of class I and Il composite restorations. J Dent 1997;25:229-232.
21. 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.
22. Kournetas N, Chakmakchi M, Kakaboura A, Rahiotis C, Geis-Gerstofer J. Marginal and internal adaptation of class Il ormocer and hybrid resin composite restorations before and after load cycling. Clin Oral Invest 2004;8:123-129.
23. Lendenmann U. Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Research & Development Scientific Service, Bendererstrasse 2 FL-9494 Schaan, Liechtenstein, 2004.
24. Lindberg A, Davidson CL, Lindberg M. 3-year evaluation of a new open sandwich technique in class Il cavities. Am J Dent 2003;16:33-36.
25. Lutz F, Krejci I. Resin composites in the post-amalgam age. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1999;20:1138-1144.
26. Lutz F, Krejci I. Amalgam substitutes: a critical analysis. J Esthet Dent 2000;1:146-159.
27. Manhart J, Hollwich B, Mehl A, Kunzelmann K-H, Hickel R. Marginal integrity of Ormocer and composite restorations in class Il cavities after artificial aging [in German]. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 1999;54:89-95.
28. Manhart J, Kunzelmann KH, Chen HY, Hickel R. Mechanical properties and were behavior of light-cured packable composite resins. Dent Mater 2000;16:33-40.
29. Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN. An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Den Assoc 2003;134:1382-1390.
30. 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.
31. Moszner N, Salz U. New developments of polymeric dental composites. Prog Polym Sci 2001;26:535-576.
32. Nash RW, Lowe RA, Leinfelder K. Using packable composite for direct posterior placement. J Am Dent Assoc 2001;132:1099-1114.
33. Oberlander H, Hiller KA, Thonemenn B, Schmalz G. Clinical evaluation of packable composite resins in class-II restorations. Clin Oral Invest 2001;5:102-107.
34. Rosin M, Urban Ad, Gartner C, Bernhardt O, Splieth C, Meyer G. Polymerization shrinkage-strain and microleakage in dentin-bordered cavities of chemically and light-cured restorative materials. Dent Mater 2002;18:521-528.
35. Rosin M, Steffen H, Konschake C, Gersse U, Teichmann D, Hartmann A. One-year evaluation of an ormocer restorative- a multipractice clinical trial. Clin Oral Invest 2003;7:20-26.
36. Ryge G. Clinical criteria, Int Dent J 1980;30:347-358.
37. Sarrett DC. Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations. Dent Mater 2005;21:9-20.
38. Sarrett DC, Coletti DP, Peluso AR. The effects of alcoholic beverages on composite wear. Dent Mater 2000;16:62-67.
39. Schafers F, Krantz-Schafers C. Clinical evaluation of Class II composite restorations-30 month results. J Dent Res 2003;81(special issue):1480.
40. Shi G, Zhang MQ, Rong MZ, Wetzel B, Friedrich K. Friction and wear of low nanometer Sis N4 filled epoxy composites. Wear 2003;254:784-796.
41. The Dental Advisor awarded Filtek Supreme "Best of 2003 Preferred Product" in the category " Nanofill" 2004, Vol. 21,No. 1.
42. Türkün LS, Türkün M, Orate F. Two-year clinical evaluation of a packable resin-based composite. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134:1205-1212.
43. Voco Research and Development (1999), Admira; A Filling System Based on Ormocer. Technical Product Profile GMBH-Anton-Flettner-Str. 1-3, D-27472, Cuxhaven/Germany 1999;4-11.
44. Wataha JC, Rueggenberg FA, Lapp CA, Lewis JB, Lockwood PE, Ergle JW, Mettenburg DJ. In-vitro cytotoxicity of resin-containing restorative materials after aging in artificial saliva. Clin Oral Invest 1999;3:144-149.
45. Wilson NH, Cowan AJ, Unterbrink G, Wilson MA, Crisp RJ. A clinical evaluation of Class II composites placed using a decoupling technique. J Adhes Dent 2000;2:319-329.
46. Wolter H, Glaubitt W, Rose K. Mater Res Soc Symp Proc 1992;271:719-724.
47. Wolter H, Storch W. DE Patent 4133494 C2. 1996 to Fraunhofer-Gesell- schaft.