Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of microhybrid, packable and nanofilled resin composites in Class I restorations

Journal of Oral Rehabilitation

Volumn 37, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 532-537

  Sadeghi, M ^a   Lynch, Christopher D ^b   Shahamat, N ^a  

^a RAFSANJAN UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES   (Iran)

^b CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Clinical evaluation; Microhybrid resin composite; Nanofilled resin composite; Packable resin composite; Posterior resin composite

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL AND DENTAL MATERIALS; NANOCOMPOSITE; POINT 4 COMPOSITE RESIN; PREMISE COMPOSITE RESIN; RESIN;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CHEMISTRY; CLASSIFICATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; COLOR; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENTAL CARIES; DENTAL SURGERY; DENTIN SENSITIVITY; ENDODONTICS; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MALE; MATERIALS TESTING; METHODOLOGY; MOLAR TOOTH; PATHOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RECURRENT DISEASE; SURFACE PROPERTY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; COLOR; COMPOSITE RESINS; DENTAL CARIES; DENTAL MARGINAL ADAPTATION; DENTAL MATERIALS; DENTAL RESTORATION FAILURE; DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; DENTIN SENSITIVITY; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; MATERIALS TESTING; MOLAR; NANOCOMPOSITES; RECURRENCE; SURFACE PROPERTIES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77954369916     PISSN: 0305182X     EISSN: 13652842     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02073.x     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Cenci MS, Donassollo TA, Logurcio AD, Demarco FF. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings. J Dent 2006, 34:427-435.
2. Manhart J, Chen HY, Neuerer P, Thiele L, Jaensch B, Hickel R. Clinical performance of the posterior composite QuiXfil after 3, 6, and 18 months in Class 1 and 2 cavities. Quintessence Int 2008, 39:757-765.
3. 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, 10:197-203.
4. Yip KH, Poon BK, Chu FC, Poon EC, Kong FY, Smales RJ. Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin-based composites for posterior restorations in permanent teeth: results at 12 months. J Am Dent Assoc 2003, 134:1581-1589.
5. Lopes GC, Oliveira GM. Direct composite resin restorations in posterior teeth. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2006, 27:572-579.
6. Sadeghi M, Lynch CD. The effect of flowable materials on the microleakage of Class II composite restorations that extend apical to the cemento-enamel junction. Oper Dent 2009, 34:306-311.
7. Attar N, Korkmaz Y. Effect of two light-emitting diodes (LED) and one halogen curing light on the microleakage of Class V flowable composite restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007, 8:80-88.
8. Loguercio AD, Reis A, Hernandez PA, Macedo RP, Busato AL. 3-Year clinical evaluation of posterior packable composite resin restorations. J Oral Rehabil 2006, 33:144-151.
9. Sadeghi M. Influence of flowable materials on microleakage of nanofilled and hybrid Class II composite restorations with LED and QTH LCUs. Indian J Dent Res 2009, 20:159-163.
10. Türkün LS, Türkün M, Ozata F. Two-year clinical evaluation of a packable resin-based composite. J Am Dent Assoc 2003, 134:1205-1212.
11. Sadeghi M. The effect of fluid composite as gingival layer on microleakage of Class II composite restorations. Dent Res J 2007, 4:40-47.
12. Poon EC, Smales RJ, Yip KH. Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid posterior resin-based composites: results at 3.5 years. J Am Dent Assoc 2005, 136:1533-1540.
13. Dresch W, Volpato S, Gomes JC, Ribeiro NR, Reis A, Loguercio AD. Clinical evaluation of a nanofilled composite in posterior teeth: 12-month results. Oper Dent 2006, 31:409-417.
14. Türkün LS, Aktener BO. Twenty-four-month clinical evaluation of different posterior composite resin materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2001, 132:196-203.
15. Perry DA. Plaque Control for the Periodontal Patient. Carranaza's clinical periodontology 2006, 743. Newman MGTakei HHKlokkevold PR. In, eds, 10th edn, St. Louis, Saunders Inc
16. Roberson TM, Heymann HO, Swift EJ. Sturdevant's art and science of operative dentistry 2006, 575-577. 5th edn, St. Louis, Missouri, Elsevier Mosby, pp
17. Mahmoud SH, El-Embaby AE, AbdAllah AM, Hamama HH. Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer, nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorative systems in posterior teeth. J Adhes Dent 2008, 10:315-322.
18. Swift EJ, Ritter AV, Heymann HO, Sturdevant JR, Wilder AD. 36-month clinical evaluation of two adhesives and microhybrid resin composites in Class I restorations. Am J Dent 2008, 21:148-152.
19. Sarrett DC, Brooks CN, Rose JT. Clinical performance evaluation of a packable posterior composite in bulk-cured restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 2006, 137:71-80.
20. de Souza FB, Guimarães RP, Silva CH. A clinical evaluation of packable and microhybrid resin composite restorations: one-year report. Quintessence Int 2005, 36:41-48.
21. Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 2004, 29:481-508.
22. Opdam NJ, Bronkhurst EM, Roeters JM, Loomans BA. A retrospective study clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. Dent Mater 2007, 23:2-8.
23. Gianordoli Neto R, Santiago SL, Mendonça JS, Passos VF, Lauris JR, Navarro MF. One year clinical evaluation of two different types of composite resins in posterior teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008, 9:26-33.
24. Auschill TM, Koch CA, Wolkewitz M, Hellwig E, Arweiler NB. Occurrence and causing stimuli of postoperative sensitivity in composite restorations. Oper Dent 2009, 34:3-10.