Clinical evaluation of the posterior composite quixfil in class I and II cavities: 4-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

Journal of Adhesive Dentistry

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 237-243

  Manhart, Juergen ^a   Chen, Hong Yan ^a   Hickel, Reinhard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Clinical study; Composite; Longevity; Molars; USPHS criteria

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL AND DENTAL MATERIALS; DENTIN BONDING AGENT; QUIXFIL; RESIN; RESIN CEMENT; SYNTAC DENTINE ADHESIVE; TETRIC CERAM; XENO III;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CHEMISTRY; CLASSIFICATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; COLOR; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENTAL ACID ETCHING; DENTAL SURGERY; ENDODONTICS; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INJURY; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOLAR TOOTH; PATHOLOGY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SURFACE PROPERTY; TOOTH BRUSHING; TOOTH FRACTURE;

ACID ETCHING, DENTAL; ADULT; AGED; COLOR; COMPOSITE RESINS; DENTAL CAVITY PREPARATION; DENTAL MARGINAL ADAPTATION; DENTAL MATERIALS; DENTAL POLISHING; DENTAL RESTORATION FAILURE; DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; DENTIN-BONDING AGENTS; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOLAR; RESIN CEMENTS; SURFACE PROPERTIES; TOOTH FRACTURES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77955866880     PISSN: 14615185     EISSN: 17579988     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a17551     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Barnes DM, Blank LW, Thompson VP, Holston AM, Gingell JC. A 5- and 8- year clinical evaluation of a posterior composite resin. Quintessence Int 1991;22:143-151.
2. Chen HY, Manhart J, Thum M, Hickel R. Determination of microleakage of Xeno III self-etching adhesive. J Dent Res 82: Special Issue A, CD-ROM of Abstracts, Abstract 934.
3. Choi KK, Ferracane JL, Hilton TJ, Charlton D. Properties of packable dental composites. J Esthet Dent 2000;12:216-226.
4. Cobb DS, MacGregor KM, Vargas MA, Denehy GE. The physical properties of packable and conventional posterior resin-based composites: a comparison. J Am Dent Assoc 2000;131:1610-1615.
5. Ernst CP, Canbek K, Aksogan K, Willershausen B. Two-year clinical performance of a packable posterior composite with and without a flowable composite liner. Clin Oral Investig 2003;7:129-134.
6. Feller RP, Ricks CL, Matthews TG, Santucci EA. Three-year clinical evaluation of composite formulations for posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1987;57:544-550.
7. Flessa HP, Albrecht A, Manhart J, Chen HY, Hickel R. Marginal quality of packable composites / ormocers after loading [abstract 1716]. J Dent Res 80;special issue A:250.
8. Geurtsen W, Schoeler U. A 4-year retrospective clinical study of Class I and Class II composite restorations. J Dent 1997;25:229-232.
9. Goldberg AJ, Rydinge E, Santucci E, Racz WB. Clinical evaluation methods for posterior composite restorations. J Dent Res 1984;63:1387-1391.
10. Gordan VV, Mjör IA. Short- and long-term clinical evaluation of post-operative sensitivity of a new resin-based restorative material and self-etching primer. Oper Dent 2002;27:543-548.
11. Hickel R. Glass ionomers, cermets, hybrid ionomers and compomers -(long-term) clinical evaluation. Trans Acad Dent Mat 1996;9:105-129.
12. Hickel R. Moderne Füllungswerkstoffe. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 1997;52:572-585.
13. Hickel R, Kunzelmann KH. Keramikinlays und Veneers. Hanser: Munich, 1997.
14. Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, Heintze SD, Mjör IA, Peters M, Rousson V, Randall R, Schmalz G, Tyas M, Vanherle G. Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. J Adhes Dent 2007;9:121-147.
15. Ishikiriama SK, Mondelli RF, Kano SC, Ishikiriama A, Mondelli J. Role of additional retention on marginal adaptation and sealing of large resin composite Class II restorations. Oper Dent 2007;32:564-570.
16. Jokstad A, Mjör IA, Qvist V. The age of restorations in situ. Acta Odontol Scand 1994;52:234-248.
17. Leinfelder KF. Evaluation of criteria used for assessing the clinical performance of composite resins in posterior teeth. Quintessence Int 1987;18:531-536.
18. Leinfelder KF, Bayne SC, Swift EJ. Packable composites: overview and technical considerations. J Esthet Dent 1999;11:234-249.
19. Leinfelder KF, Sluder TB, Santos JFF, Wall JT. Five-year clinical evaluation of anterior and posterior restorations of composite resins. Oper Dent 1980;5:57-65.
20. Lopes LG, Cefaly DF, Franco EB, Mondelli RF, Lauris JR, Navarro MF. Clinical evaluation of two "packable" posterior composite resins: two-year results. Clin Oral Investig 2003;7:123-128.
21. Lundin SA, Koch G. Class I and II composite resin restorations: 4-year clinical follow up. Swed Dent J 1989;13:217-227.
22. Lundin SA, Koch G. Class I and II posterior composite resin restorations after 5 and 10 years. Swed Dent J 1999;23:165-171.
23. Manhart J, Albrecht A, Chen HY, Hickel R. Microleakage of packable composites / ormocers after artificial aging [abstract 556]. J Dent Res 80;special issue A:105
24. Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 2004;29:481-508.
25. Manhart J, Chen HY, Hickel R. The suitability of packable resin-based composites for posterior restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 2001;132:639-645.
26. Manhart J, Thum M, Chen HY, Hickel R. Marginal adaptation of Xeno III self-etching adhesive. J Dent Res 82: Special Issue A, CD-ROM of Abstracts, Abstract 935.
27. Mjör IA. The reasons for replacement and the age of failed restorations in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand 1997;55:58-63.
28. Pallesen U, Qvist V. Composite resin fillings and inlays. An 11-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig 2003;7:71-79.
29. Pelka M, Dettenhofer G, Reinelt C, Krämer N, Petschelt A. Validität und Reliabilität klinischer Kriterien für adhäsive Inlaysysteme. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 1994;49:921-925.
30. Polydorou O, Manolakis A, Hellwig E, Hahn P. Evaluation of the curing depth of two translucent composite materials using a halogen and two LED curing units. Clin Oral Invest 2008;12:45-51.
31. Roulet JF. Benefits and disadvantages of tooth-coloured alternatives to amalgam. J Dent 1997;25:459-473.
32. Ryge G. Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 1980;30:347-358.
33. Ryge G, Cvar JF. Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. US Dental Health Center, San Francisco: US Government Printing Office; Publ. No. 7902244, 1971.
34. Ryge G, Jendresen MD, Glantz PO, Mjör IA. Standardization of clinical investigators for studies of restorative materials. Swed Dent J 1981;5:235-239.
35. Ryge G, Snyder M. Evaluating the clinical quality of restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1973;87:369-377.
36. Ryge G, Stanford JW. Recommended format for protocol of clinical research program: clinical comparison of several anterior and posterior restorative materials. Int Dent J 1977;27:46-57.
37. Siso SH, Hürmüzlü M, Turgut M, Altundasar E, Serper A, Er K. Fracture resistance of the buccal cusps of root filled maxillary premolar teeth restored with various techniques. Int Endodont J 2007;40:161-168.
38. Smales RJ, Webster DA, Leppard PI. Survival predictions of four types of dental restorative materials. J Dent 1991;19:278-282.
39. Sturdevant JR, Lundeen TF, Sluder TB, Leinfelder K. Three-year study of two light-cured posterior composite resins. Dent Mater 1986;2:263-268.
40. Türkün LS, Turkun M, Ozata F. Two-year clinical evaluation of a packable resin-based composite. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134:1205-1212.
41. Wilson NHF, Wilson MA, Wastell DG, Smith GA. A clinical trial of a visible light cured posterior composite resin restorative material: five-year results. Quintessence Int 1988;19:675-681.