Clinical evaluation of two packable posterior composites a five-year follow-up

Journal of the American Dental Association

Volumn 140, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 447-454

  Fagundes, Ticiane Cestari ^a   Barata, Terezinha Jesus Esteves ^b   Carvalho, Carlos A R ^a   Franco, Eduardo B ^a   Van Pijken, Jan W V ^c   Navarro, Maria Fidela Lima ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

^b UNIVERSIDADE NORTE DO PARANÁ   (Brazil)

^c UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Adhesives; Dental restoration; Randomized controlled clinical trial; Resin based composites

Indexed keywords

ALERT COMPOSITE RESIN; RESIN; SUREFIL PACKABLE COMPOSITE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CHEMISTRY; CHILD; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENTAL ACID ETCHING; DENTAL BONDING; DENTAL SURGERY; DENTIN SENSITIVITY; ENDODONTICS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MATERIALS TESTING; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; MOLAR TOOTH; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL;

ACID ETCHING, DENTAL; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CHILD; COMPOSITE RESINS; DENTAL BONDING; DENTAL CAVITY LINING; DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; DENTIN SENSITIVITY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MARGINAL ADAPTATION (DENTISTRY); MATERIALS TESTING; MIDDLE AGED; MOLAR; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 64749111394     PISSN: 00028177     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0194     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, et al. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. JADA 2007;138(6):775-783.
2. Baghdadi ZD. Preservation-based approaches to restore posterior teeth with amalgam, resin or a combination of materials. Am J Dent 2002;15(l):54-65.
3. Lee IB, Son HH, Um CM. Rheologie properties of flowable, conventional hybrid, and condensable composite resins. Dent Mater 2003; 19(4):298-307.
4. Al-Sharaa KA, Watts DC. Stickiness prior to setting of some light cured resin-composites. Dent Mater 2003;19(3):182-187.
5. Ferracane JL, Choi KK, Condon JR. In vitro wear of packable dental composites. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1999;25(suppl): S60-S66.
6. Manhart J, Chen HY, Hickel R. The suitability of packable resin-based composites for posterior restorations. JADA 2001;132(5):639-645.
7. Rahiotis C, Tzoutzas J, Kakaboura A. In vitro marginal adaptation of high-viscosity resin composite restorations bonded to dentin cavities. J Adhes Dent 2004;6(l):49-53.
8. Chen HY, Manhart J, Hickel R, Kunzelmann KH. Polymerization contraction stress in light-cured packable composite resins. Dent Mater 2001;17(3):253-259.
9. Fagundes TC, Barata TJ, Bresciani E, Cefaly DF, Jorge MF, Navarro MF. Clinical evaluation of two packable posterior composites: 2-year follow-up. Clin Oral Investig 2006;10(3):197-203.
10. Browning WD, Myers ML, Chan DC, Downey MC, Pohjola RM, Frazier KB. Performance of 2 packable composites at 12 months. Quintessence Int 2006;37(5):361-368.
11. Ziskind D, Adell I, Teperovich E, Peretz B. The effect of an intermediate layer of flowable composite resin on microleakage in packable composite restorations. Int J Paediatr Dent 2005;15(5):349-354.
12. Blalock JS, Chan DC, Browning WD, Callan R, Hackman S. Measurement of clinical wear of two packable composites after 6 months in service. J Oral Rehabil 2006;3(l):59-63.
13. Brackett WW, Browning WD, Brackett MG, Callan RS, Blalock JS. Effect of restoration size on the clinical performance of posterior "packable" resin composites over 18 months. Oper Dent 2007;32(3): 212-216.
14. Loguercio AD, Reis A, Hernandez PA, Macedo RP, Busato AL. 3-year clinical evaluation of posterior packable composite resin restorations. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33(2):144-151.
15. Perry R, Kugel G. Two-year clinical evaluation of a high-density posterior restorative material. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2000; 21(12):1067-1078.
16. Poon EC, Smales RJ, Yip KH. Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid posterior resin-based composites: results at 3.5 years. JADA 2005;136(11):1533-1540.
17. de Souza FB, Guimaraes RP, Silva CH. A clinical evaluation of packable and microhybrid resin composite restorations: one-year report. Quintessence Int 2005;36(l):41-48.
18. Türkün LS, Türkün M, Ozata F. Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for a period of 3 years. Quintessence Int 2005; 36(5):365-372.
19. Perdigão J, Baratieri LN, Lopes M. Laboratory evaluation and clinical application of a new one-bottle adhesive. J Esthet Dent 1999; 11(1):23-35.
20. van Dijken JW. A 6-year clinical evaluation of class I poly-acid modified resin composite/resin composite laminate restorations cured with a two-step curing technique. Dent Mater 2003;19(5):423-428.
21. Bayne SC, Schmalz G. Reprinting the classic article on USPHS evaluation methods for measuring the clinical research performance of restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 2005;9(4):209-214.
22. Ryge G. Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 1980;30(4):347-358.
23. Leinfelder KF, Bayne S, Swift EJ Jr. Packable composites: overview and technical considerations. J Esthet Dent 1999;11(5): 234-249.
24. Choi KK, Ferracane JL, Hilton TJ, Charlton D. Properties of packable dental composites. J Esthet Dent 2000;12(4):216-226.
25. van Dijken JW, Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K. Fiber-reinforced packable resin composites in Class II cavities. J Dent 2006;34(10):763-769.
26. Poskus LT, Placido E, Cardoso PE. Influence of adhesive system and placement technique on microleakage of resin-based composite restorations. J Adhes Dent 2004;6(3):227-232.
27. American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. Resin Based Composites for Posterior Restorations: Acceptance Program Guidelines. Chicago: American Dental Association; 2001.
28. Borges AB, Marsilio AL, Pagani C, Rodrigues JR. Surface roughness of packable composite resins polished with various systems. J Esthet Restor Dent 2004;16(l):42-47.
29. van Dijken JW, Meurman JH, Järvinen J. Effect of finishing pro- cedures on surface textures of some resin restoratives: a comparison between new and old types of composite resins. Acta Odont Scand 1980;38(5):293-301.
30. Suzuki S. Does the wear resistance of packable composite equal that of dental amalgam? J Esthet Restor Dent 2004;16(6):355-365.
31. dos Santos PH, Pavan S, Consani S, Sobrinho LC, Sinhoreti MA, Filho JN. In vitro evaluation of surface roughness of 4 resin composites after the toothbrushing process and methods to recover superficial smoothness. Quintessence Int 2007;38(5):247-253.
32. Brunthaler A, König F, Lucas T, Sperr W, Schedle A. Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth. Clin Oral Investig 2003;7(2):63-70.
33. Hickel R, Manhart J. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent 2001;3(l):45-64.
34. Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R. Buonocore Memorial Lecture: review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restora- tions in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 2004; 29(5):481-508.
35. Rosa Rodolpho PA, Cenci MS, Donassollo TA, Loguércio AD, Demarco FF. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings. J Dent 2006;34(7):427-435.
36. Mitchell RJ, Koike M, Okabe T. Posterior amalgam restorations-usage, regulation, and longevity. Dent Clin North Am 2007;51(3): 573-589.
37. Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JM, Loomans BA. A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. Dent Mater 2007;23(l):2-8.
38. Jacobsen T. Bonding of resin to dentin: interactions between materials, substrate and operators. Swed Dent J Suppl 2003;160:1-66.
39. Opdam NJ, Roeters JJ, Joosten M, Veeke O. Porosities and voids in Class I restorations placed by six operators using a packable or syringable composite. Dent Mater 2002;18(l):58-63.