Three-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance and wear of a nanocomposite versus a hybrid composite

Dental Materials

Volumn 25, Issue 11, 2009, Pages 1302-1314

  Palaniappan, Senthamaraiselvi ^a   Bharadwaj, Dimple ^a   Mattar, Daniela Lima ^a   Peumans, Marleen ^a   Van Meerbeek, Bart ^a   Lambrechts, Paul ^a  

^a CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Clinical performance; Clinical trial; Composite restorations; Microhybrid; Nanocomposites; Wear

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PERFORMANCE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPOSITE RESTORATIONS; MICROHYBRID; WEAR;

ADA (PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE); DENTAL COMPOSITES; DENTISTRY; EPOXY RESINS; GYPSUM; NANOCOMPOSITES; RESINS; THREE DIMENSIONAL;

RESTORATION;

BIOMEDICAL AND DENTAL MATERIALS; BISPHENOL A BIS(2 HYDROXYPROPYL) ETHER DIMETHACRYLATE; DENTIN BONDING AGENT; FILTEK SUPREME; NANOCOMPOSITE; RESIN; RESIN CEMENT; SILICON DIOXIDE; SINGLE BOND; Z100 COMPOSITE RESIN; ZIRCONIUM;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CHEMISTRY; CLASSIFICATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; COLOR; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENTAL BONDING; DENTAL SURGERY; ENDODONTICS; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; LASER; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MOLAR TOOTH; PATHOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY; SCOTCHBOND; STANDARD; SURFACE PROPERTY; TOOTH BRUSHING; TOOTH PROSTHESIS;

ADULT; BISPHENOL A-GLYCIDYL METHACRYLATE; COLOR; COMPOSITE RESINS; DENTAL BONDING; DENTAL CAVITY PREPARATION; DENTAL MARGINAL ADAPTATION; DENTAL MATERIALS; DENTAL POLISHING; DENTAL PROSTHESIS REPAIR; DENTAL RESTORATION FAILURE; DENTAL RESTORATION WEAR; DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; DENTIN-BONDING AGENTS; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; LASERS; MALE; MICROSCOPY, ELECTRON, SCANNING; MOLAR; NANOCOMPOSITES; RESIN CEMENTS; SILICON DIOXIDE; SURFACE PROPERTIES; ZIRCONIUM;

EID: 70349435947     PISSN: 01095641     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.06.001     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Cui D., and Gao H. Advance and prospect of bionanomaterials. Biotechnol Prog 19 (2003) 683-692
2. Goldberg A.J., Rydinge E., Santucci E.A., and Racz W.B. Clinical evaluation methods for posterior composite restorations. J Dent Res 63 (1984) 1387-1391
3. Taylor D.F., Bayne S.C., Sturdevant J.R., and Wilder A.D. Comparison of direct and indirect methods for analyzing wear of posterior composite restorations. Dent Mater 5 (1989) 157-160
4. Cunningham J. Posterior composites: evaluations without trials. J Dent 17 (1989) 18-21
5. Venhoven B.A., de Gee A.G., Werner A., and Davidson C.L. Influence of filler parameters on the mechanical coherence of dental restorative resin composites. Biomaterials 17 (1996) 735-740
6. Efes B.G., Dörter C., and Gömeç Y. Clinical evaluation of an ormocer, a nanofill composite and a hybrid composite at 2 years. Am J Dent 19 (2006) 236-240
7. 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
8. Ryge G., and Snyder M.A. Evaluating the clinical quality of restorations. J Am Dent Assess 87 (1972) 369-377
9. Freilich M.A., Goldberg A.J., Gilpatrick R.O., and Simonsen R.J. Direct and indirect evaluation of posterior composite restorations at three years. Dent Mater 8 (1992) 60-64
10. Gaengler P., Hoyer I., Montag R., and Gaebler P. Micromorphological evaluation of posterior composite restorations-a 10-year report. J Oral Rehabil 31 (2004) 991-1000
11. 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. Clin Oral Invest 11 (2007) 5-33
12. American Dental Association. ADA acceptance program guidelines: resin based composites for posterior restorations (2001), ADA Council on Scientific Affairs, Chicago
13. 3 M ESPE Filtek Supreme Universal Restorative System. Nanotechnology in technical product file, 3 M ESPE Dental products, St. Paul, USA; 2005, pp. 8-12.
14. 3 M Restorative Z100 Product file, 3 M Dental products. St. Paul, USA; 1998, pp. 7-16.
15. Crumpler D.C., Bayne S.C., Sockwell S., Brunson D., and Roberson T.M. Bonding to resurfaced posterior composites. Dent Mater 5 (1989) 417-424
16. Van Dijken J.W. A clinical evaluation of anterior conventional, microfiller, and hybrid composite resin fillings. A 6-year follow-up study. Acta Odontol Scand 44 (1986) 357-367
17. Plasmans P.J., Creugers N.H., and Mulder J. Long-term survival of extensive amalgam restorations. J Dent Res 7 (1998) 453-460
18. Opdam N.J., Loomans B.A., Roeters F.J., and Bronkhorst E.M. Five-year clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations placed by dental students. J Dent 32 (2004) 379-383
19. Söderholm K.J., Lambrechts P., Sarrett D., Abe Y., Yang M.C., Labella R., et al. Clinical wear performance of eight experimental dental composites over three years determined by two measuring methods. Eur J Oral Sci 109 (2001) 273-281
20. Mehl A., Gloger W., Kunzelmann K.H., and Hickel R. A new optical 3-D device for the detection of wear. J Dent Res 76 (1997) 1799-1807
21. Okeson J. Management of temporomandibular disorders and occlusion. 5th ed. (2003), CV Mosby and Co., St. Louis, MO 416,418,605
22. Kleinberg I. Occlusion practice and assessment (1991), Knight Publishing, Oxford, UK p. 28
23. Smukler H. Equilibration in the natural and restored dentition (1991), Quintessence Publishing, Chicago, IL p. 110
24. Taylor D.F., Bayne S.C., Sturdevant J.R., and Wilder A.D. Correlation of M-L, Leinfelder, and USPHS clinical evaluation techniques for wear. Dent Mater 6 (1990) 151-153
25. Lambrechts P., Vuylsteke M., Vanherle G., and Davidson C.L. Quantitative evaluation of the wear resistance of posterior dental restorations. A new three-dimensional measuring technique. J Dent 12 (1984) 252-267
26. Lambrechts P., Braem M., Vuylsteke M., and Vanherle G. Quantitative in vivo wear of human enamel. J Dent Res 68 (1989) 1752-1754
27. Isenberg B.P., and Leinfelder K.F. Efficacy of beveling posterior composite resin preparations. J Esthet Dent 2 (1990) 70-73
28. Krämer N., Reinelt C., Richter G., Petschelt A., and Frankenberger R. Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in Class II cavities: clinical results and margin analysis after four years. Dent Mater 25 (2009) 750-759
29. Bottenberg P., Alaerts M., and Keulemans F. A prospective randomised clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: three-year results. J Dent 35 (2007) 163-171
30. Manhart J., Neuerer P., Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A., and Hickel R. Three-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 84 (2000) 289-296
31. Nikaido T., Kunzelmann K.H., Chen H., Ogata M., Harada N., Yamaguchi S., et al. Evaluation of thermal cycling and mechanical loading on bond strength of a self-etching primer system to dentin. Dent Mater 18 (2002) 269-275
32. Feilzer A.J., De Gee A.J., and Davidson C.L. Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration C in the restoration. J Dent Res 66 (1987) 1636-1639
33. De Munck J., Van Meerbeek B., Yoshida Y., Inoue S., and Vargas M. Four year water degradation of total etch adhesives bonded to dentin. J Dent Res 82 (2003) 136-140
34. 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
35. Ergücü Z., and Türkün L.S. Clinical performance of novel resin composites in posterior teeth: 18-month results. J Adhes Dent 9 (2007) 209-216
36. Mahmoud S.H., El-Embaby A.E., AbdAllah A.M., and Hamama H.H. Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer, nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorative systems in posterior teeth. J Adhes Dent 10 (2008) 315-322
37. 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
38. Jung M., Sehr K., and Klimek J. Surface texture of four nanofilled and one hybrid composite after finishing. Oper Dent 32 (2007) 45-52
39. Hickel R., and Manhart J. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent 3 (2001) 45-64
40. Manhart J., Chen H.Y., Hamm G., and Hickel R. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 29 (2004) 481-508
41. DeLong R. Intra-oral restorative materials wear: rethinking the current approaches: how to measure wear. Dent Mater 22 (2006) 702-711
42. Roulet X. Development of appropriate measuring devices. Degradation of dental polymers (1987), Karger, Basel pp. 101-08
43. Ogle R.E., and Davis E.L. Clinical wear study of three commercially available artificial tooth materials: thirty-six month results. J Prosthet Dent 79 (1998) 145-151
44. Miyaura K., Morita M., Matsuka Y., Yamashita A., and Watanabe T. Rehabilitation of biting abilities in patients with different types of dental prostheses. J Oral Rehabil 27 (2000) 1073-1076
45. Kato K., Kakuta K., and Ogura H. Effect of material and configuration of antagonist on combined wear. Dent Mater J 24 (2005) 368-376
46. Brunthaler A., Konig F., Lucas T., Sperr W., and Schedle A. Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth. Clin Oral Investig 7 (2003) 63-70
47. Leinfelder K.F., Wilder A.D., and Teixeira L.C. Wear rates of composite resins. J Am Dent Assoc 112 (1986) 829-833
48. Wendell J.J., and Vann Jr. W.F. Wear of composite resin restorations in primary versus permanent molar teeth. J Dent Res 67 (1988) 71-74
49. Lundin S.A. Studies on posterior composite resins with special reference to class II restorations. Swed Dent J Suppl 73 (1990) 1-41
50. Barnes D.M., Blank L.W., Thompson V.P., Holston A.M., and Gingell J.C. A 5- and 8-year clinical evaluation of a posterior composite resin. Quintessence Int 22 (1991) 143-151
51. CRA Report. 20(4); 1996.
52. Willems G., Lambrechts P., Braem M., and Vanherle G. Three-year follow-up of five posterior composites: in vivo wear. J Dent 21 (1993) 74-78
53. Pesun I.J., Olson A.K., Hodges J.S., and Anderson G.C. In vivo evaluation of the surface of posterior resin composite restorations: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 84 (2000) 353-359
54. Swift Jr. E.J., Ritter A.V., Heymann H.O., Sturdevant J.R., and Wilder Jr. A.D. 36-month clinical evaluation of two adhesives and microhybrid resin composites in Class I restorations. Am J Dent 21 (2008) 148-152
55. Wilson N.H., and Norman R.D. Five-year findings of a multiclinical trial for a posterior composite. J Dent 19 (1991) 153-159
56. Satou N., Khan A.M., Satou K., Satou J., Shintani H., Wakasa K., et al. In-vitro and in-vivo wear profile of composite resins. J Oral Rehabil 19 (1992) 31-37
57. Ryan A.S. Wear striation direction on primate teeth: a scanning electron microscope examination. Am J Phys Anthropol 50 (1979) 155-168
58. Patrick M. Intertooth and intrafacet dental microwear variation in an archaeological sample of modern humans from the Jordan Valley. Am J Phys Anthropol 129 (2006) 39-44
59. Puech P.F., Albertini H., and Serratrice C. Tooth microwear and dietary patterns in early hominids from Laetoli, Hadar and Olduvai. J Hum Evol 12 (1983) 721-729
60. Teaford M.F. A review of dental microwear and diet in modern mammals. Scanning Microsc 2 (1988) 1149-1166