Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in Class II cavities: Clinical results and margin analysis after four years

Dental Materials

Volumn 25, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 750-759

  Krämer, Norbert ^a   Reinelt, Christian ^b   Richter, Gert ^c   Petschelt, Anselm ^c   Frankenberger, Roland ^c  

^a DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

^b University of Erlangen Nuremberg ^*

^c UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ERLANGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Etch and rinse; Marginal integrity; Nanofiller; Resin composites

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL SERVICES; ETCH AND RINSE; FRIEDMAN TESTS; HYBRID COMPOSITES; LIGHT MICROSCOPES; MANN WHITNEY U TESTS; MARGIN ANALYSIS; MARGINAL INTEGRITY; MARGINAL QUALITIES; NANOFILLER; NANOHYBRID; OBSERVATION PERIODS; RECALL RATES; RESIN COMPOSITES; RESTORATIVE MATERIALS; SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPES; SEM ANALYSIS; SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATIONS; SURVIVAL RATES;

DENTAL COMPOSITES; ENAMELS; FILLING; MICROSCOPES; QUALITY ASSURANCE; RESINS; SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY;

RESTORATION;

DENTIN BONDING AGENT; GRANDIO; NANOCOMPOSITE; RESIN; RESIN CEMENT; SOLOBOND M; SYNTAC DENTINE ADHESIVE; TETRIC CERAM;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENTAL ETCHING; DENTAL SURGERY; ENDODONTICS; FEMALE; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PARTICLE SIZE; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RETREATMENT;

ADULT; COMPOSITE RESINS; DENTAL CAVITY PREPARATION; DENTAL ETCHING; DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; DENTIN-BONDING AGENTS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MARGINAL ADAPTATION (DENTISTRY); MIDDLE AGED; NANOCOMPOSITES; PARTICLE SIZE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPLICA TECHNIQUES; RESIN CEMENTS; RETREATMENT; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 67349257472     PISSN: 01095641     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2008.12.003     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Manhart J., Garcia-Godoy F., and Hickel R. Direct posterior restorations: clinical results and new developments. Dent Clin North Am 46 (2002) 303-339
2. Hickel R., and Manhart J. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent 3 (2001) 45-64
3. Mjor I.A. The reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand 55 (1997) 58-63
4. Van Meerbeek B., Peumans M., Verschueren M., Gladys S., Braem M., Lambrechts P., et al. Clinical status of ten dentin adhesive systems. J Dent Res 73 (1994) 1690-1702
5. Bergenholtz G. Evidence for bacterial causation of adverse pulpal responses in resin-based dental restorations. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 11 (2000) 467-480
6. Manhart J., Chen H., Hamm G., and Hickel R. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 29 (2004) 481-508
7. Manhart J, Chen HY, Hickel R. Three-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial of the posterior composite QuiXfil in class I and II cavities. Clin Oral Investig; in press.
8. Peumans M., Kanumilli P., De Munck J., Van Landuyt K., Lambrechts P., and Van Meerbeek B. Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials. Dent Mater 21 (2005) 864-881
9. Tay F.R., Frankenberger R., Krejci I., Bouillaguet S., Pashley D.H., Carvalho R.M., et al. Single-bottle adhesives behave as permeable membranes after polymerization. I. In vivo evidence. J Dent 32 (2004) 611-621
10. Baratieri L.N., and Ritter A.V. Four-year clinical evaluation of posterior resin-based composite restorations placed using the total-etch technique. J Esthet Restor Dent 13 (2001) 50-57
11. Efes B.G., Dorter C., Gomec Y., and Koray F. Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer and nanofill composite with and without a flowable liner. J Adhes Dent 8 (2006) 119-126
12. Ernst C.P., Brandenbusch M., Meyer G., Canbek K., Gottschalk F., and Willershausen B. Two-year clinical performance of a nanofiller vs a fine-particle hybrid resin composite. Clin Oral Investig 10 (2006) 119-125
13. Feilzer A.J., de Gee A.J., and Davidson C.L. Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of the restoration. J Dent Res 66 (1987) 1636-1639
14. De Munck J., Van Landuyt K., Peumans M., Poitevin A., Lambrechts P., Braem M., et al. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res 84 (2005) 118-132
15. Krämer N., Garcia-Godoy F., and Frankenberger R. Evaluation of resin composite materials. Part II. In vivo investigations. Am J Dent 18 (2005) 75-81
16. Krämer N., Taschner M., Lohbauer U., Petschelt A., and Frankenberger R. Totally bonded ceramic inlays and onlays after eight years. J Adhes Dent 10 (2008) 307-314
17. Frankenberger R., Perdigao J., Rosa B.T., and Lopes M. No-bottle vs "multi-bottle" dentin adhesives-a microtensile bond strength and morphological study. Dent Mater 17 (2001) 373-380
18. Nikolaenko S.A., Lohbauer U., Roggendorf M., Petschelt A., Dasch W., and Frankenberger R. Influence of c-factor and layering technique on microtensile bond strength to dentin. Dent Mater 20 (2004) 579-585
19. Van Meerbeek B., Perdigao J., Lambrechts P., and Vanherle G. The clinical performance of adhesives. J Dent 26 (1998) 1-20
20. Van Meerbeek B., De Munck J., Yoshida Y., Inoue S., Vargas M., Vijay P., et al. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 28 (2003) 215-235
21. Van Nieuwenhuysen J.P., D'Hoore W., Carvalho J., and Qvist V. Long-term evaluation of extensive restorations in permanent teeth. J Dent 31 (2003) 395-405
22. Van Meerbeek B., Kanumilli P., De Munck J., Van Landuyt K., Lambrechts P., and Peumans M. A randomized controlled study evaluating the effectiveness of a two-step self-etch adhesive with and without selective phosphoric-acid etching of enamel. Dent Mater 21 (2005) 375-383
23. De Munck J., Van Meerbeek B., Yoshida Y., Inoue S., Suzuki K., and Lambrechts P. Four-year water degradation of total-etch adhesives bonded to dentin. J Dent Res 82 (2003) 136-140
24. Frankenberger R., and Tay F.R. Self-etch vs etch-and-rinse adhesives: effect of thermo-mechanical fatigue loading on marginal quality of bonded resin composite restorations. Dent Mater 21 (2005) 397-412
25. Frankenberger R., Kramer N., Lohbauer U., Nikolaenko S.A., and Reich S.M. Marginal integrity: is the clinical performance of bonded restorations predictable in vitro?. J Adhes Dent 9 Suppl. 1 (2007) 107-116
26. Dietschi D., De Soegenthal G., Neveu-Rosenstand L., and Holz J. Influence of the restorative technique and new adhesives on the dentin marginal seal and adaptation of resin composite Class II restorations: an in vitro evaluation. Quintessence Int 26 (1995) 717-727
27. Frankenberger R., Strobel W.O., Krämer N., Lohbauer U., Winterscheidt J., Winterscheidt B., et al. Evaluation of the fatigue behavior of the resin-dentin bond with the use of different methods. J Biomed Mater Res B: Appl Biomater 67 (2003) 712-721
28. Frankenberger R., Strobel W.O., Lohbauer U., Krämer N., and Petschelt A. The effect of six years of water storage on resin composite bonding to human dentin. J Biomed Mater Res B: Appl Biomater 69 (2004) 25-32
29. Frankenberger R., Kramer N., and Petschelt A. Technique sensitivity of dentin bonding: effect of application mistakes on bond strength and marginal adaptation. Oper Dent 25 (2000) 324-330
30. Dresch W., Volpato S., Gomes J.C., Ribeiro N.R., Reis A., and Loguercio A.D. Clinical evaluation of a nanofilled composite in posterior teeth: 12-month results. Oper Dent 31 (2006) 409-417
31. Hickel R., Roulet J.F., Bayne S., Heintze S.D., Mjör I.A., Peters M., et al. Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Science Committee Project 2/98-FDI World Dental Federation study design (Part I) and criteria for evaluation (Part II) of direct and indirect restorations including onlays and partial crowns. J Adhes Dent 9 Suppl. 1 (2007) 121-147
32. Lambrechts P., Braem M., and Vanherle G. Buonocore memorial lecture. Evaluation of clinical performance for posterior composite resins and dentin adhesives. Oper Dent 12 (1987) 53-78
33. Lohbauer U., Frankenberger R., Kramer N., and Petschelt A. Strength and fatigue performance versus filler fraction of different types of direct dental restoratives. J Biomed Mater Res B: Appl Biomater 76 (2006) 114-120
34. Clelland N.L., Pagnotto M.P., Kerby R.E., and Seghi R.R. Relative wear of flowable and highly filled composite. J Prosthet Dent 93 (2005) 153-157
35. Schwartz J.I., and Soderholm K.J. Effects of filler size, water, and alcohol on hardness and laboratory wear of dental composites. Acta Odontol Scand 62 (2004) 102-106
36. Turssi C.P., De Moraes P.B., and Serra M.C. Wear of dental resin composites: insights into underlying processes and assessment methods-a review. J Biomed Mater Res B: Appl Biomater 65 (2003) 280-285
37. Ferracane J.L., and Condon J.R. In vitro evaluation of the marginal degradation of dental composites under simulated occlusal loading. Dent Mater 15 (1999) 262-267
38. Needleman I., Worthington H., Moher D., Schulz K., and Altman D.G. Improving the completeness and transparency of reports of randomized trials in oral health: the CONSORT statement. Am J Dent 21 (2008) 7-12
39. Abdalla A.I., and Davidson C.L. Comparison of the marginal integrity of in vivo and in vitro Class II composite restorations. J Dent 21 (1993) 158-162
40. Krämer N., Garcia-Godoy F., Reinelt C., and Frankenberger R. Clinical performance of posterior compomer restorations over 4 years. Am J Dent 19 (2006) 61-66
41. Frankenberger R., Garcia-Godoy F., Lohbauer U., Petschelt A., and Krämer N. Evaluation of resin composite materials. Part I. In vitro investigations. Am J Dent 18 (2005) 23-27
42. Attar N. The effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of composite resin materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 8 (2007) 27-35
43. Jung M., Sehr K., and Klimek J. Surface texture of four nanofilled and one hybrid composite after finishing. Oper Dent 32 (2007) 45-52