Marginal quality of flowable 4-mm base vs. Conventionally layered resin composite

Journal of Dentistry

Volumn 39, Issue 10, 2011, Pages 643-647

  Roggendorf, Matthias J ^a   Krämer, Norbert ^b   Appelt, Andreas ^a   Naumann, Michael ^c   Frankenberger, Roland ^a  

^a PHILIPPS UNIVERSITY MARBURG   (Germany)

^b JUSTUS LIEBIG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ULM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Adhesives; Bulk fill; Flowables; Marginal quality; Resin based composites

Indexed keywords

EID: 80055069374     PISSN: 03005712     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2011.07.004     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. 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. Operative Dentistry 2004;29:481-508. (Pubitemid 39278667)
2. Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Loomans BA, Huysmans MC. 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. Journal of Dental Research 2010;89:1063-7.
3. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, et al. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Operative Dentistry 2003;28:215-35. (Pubitemid 37237447)
4. Ernst CP, Canbek K, Aksogan K, Willershausen B. Two-year clinical performance of a packable posterior composite with and without a flowable composite liner. Clinical Oral Investigations 2003;7:129-34.
5. Frankenberger R, Reinelt C, Petschelt A, Krämer N. Operator vs. material influence on clinical outcome of bonded ceramic inlays. Dental Materials 2009;25:960-8.
6. Garcia-Godoy F, Kramer N, Feilzer AJ, Frankenberger R. Long-term degradation of enamel and dentin bonds: 6-year results in vitro vs. in vivo. Dental Materials 2010;26:1113-8.
7. Kramer N, Garcia-Godoy F, Reinelt C, Feilzer AJ, Frankenberger R. Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in extended Class II cavities after six years. Dental Materials 2011;27:455-64.
8. Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. A 13-year clinical evaluation of two three-step etch-and-rinse adhesives in non-carious class-V lesions. Clinical Oral Investigations, EPub ahead of print.
9. Kramer N, Garcia-Godoy F, Frankenberger R. Evaluation of resin composite materials. Part II. In vivo investigations. American Journal of Dentistry 2005;18:75-81. (Pubitemid 40934171)
10. van Dijken JW. Durability of resin composite restorations in high C-factor cavities: a 12-year follow-up. Journal of Dentistry 2010;38:469-74.
11. Blunck U, Zaslansky P. Enamel margin integrity of Class I one-bottle all-in-one adhesives-based restorations. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 2011;13:23-9.
12. Bortolotto T, Onisor I, Krejci I. Proximal direct composite restorations and chairside CAD/CAM inlays: marginal adaptation of a two-step self-etch adhesive with and without selective enamel conditioning. Clinical Oral Investigations 2007;11:35-43.
13. Frankenberger R, Strobel WO, Kramer N, et al. Evaluation of the fatigue behavior of the resin-dentin bond with the use of different methods. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research B Applied Biomaterials 2003;67:712-21. (Pubitemid 37521379)
14. Frankenberger R, Tay FR. Self-etch vs etch-and-rinse adhesives: effect of thermo-mechanical fatigue loading on marginal quality of bonded resin composite restorations. Dental Materials 2005;21:397-412. (Pubitemid 40467029)
15. Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y, Mine A, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL. State of the art of self-etch adhesives. Dental Materials 2011;27:17-28.
16. Van Meerbeek B, Van Landuyt KL, De Munck J, et al. Technique-sensitivity of contemporary adhesives. Dental Materials Journal 2005;24:1-13. (Pubitemid 40978968)
17. Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Eight-year clinical evaluation of a 2-step self-etch adhesive with and without selective enamel etching. Dental Materials 2010;26:1176-84.
18. Chersoni S, Acquaviva GL, Prati C, et al. In vivo fluid movement through dentin adhesives in endodontically treated teeth. Journal of Dental Research 2005;84:223-7. (Pubitemid 43822027)
19. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Suh B, Carvalho R, Miller M. Single-step, self-etch adhesives behave as permeable membranes after polymerization. Part I. Bond strength and morphologic evidence. American Journal of Dentistry 2004;17:271-8. (Pubitemid 41310001)
20. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Garcia-Godoy F, Yiu CK. Single-step, self-etch adhesives behave as permeable membranes after polymerization. Part II. Silver tracer penetration evidence. American Journal of Dentistry 2004;17:315-22.
21. Burgess J, Cakir D. Comparative properties of low-shrinkage composite resins. Compendium for Continuing Educucation in Dentistry 2010;31:10-5.
22. Palaniappan S, Elsen L, Lijnen I, Peumans M, Van MB, Lambrechts P. Nanohybrid and microfilled hybrid versus conventional hybrid composite restorations: 5-year clinical wear performance. Clinical Oral Investigations, EPub ahead of print.
23. Frankenberger R, Lohbauer U, Roggendorf MJ, Naumann M, Taschner M. Selective enamel etching reconsidered: better than etch-and-rinse and self-etch? Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 2008;10:339-44.
24. van Dijken JW, Pallesen U. Clinical performance of a hybrid resin composite with and without an intermediate layer of flowable resin composite: a 7-year evaluation. Dental Materials 2011;27:150-6.
25. Ilie N, Hickel R. Investigations on a methacrylate-based flowable composite based on the SDRTM technology. Dental Materials 2011;27:348-55.
26. Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Pelka M, Petschelt A. Internal adaptation and overhang formation of direct Class II resin composite restorations. Clinical Oral Investigations 1999;3:208-15.
27. Stefanski S, van Dijken JW. Clinical performance of a nanofilled resin composite with and without an intermediary layer of flowable composite: a 2-year evaluation. Clinical Oral Investigations, EPub ahead of print.
28. Opdam NJ, Roeters JJ, Loomans BA, Bronkhorst EM. Sevenyear clinical evaluation of painful cracked teeth restored with a direct composite restoration. Journal of Endodontics 2008;34:808-11.
29. Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Lohbauer U, Nikolaenko SA, Reich SM. Marginal integrity: is the clinical performance of bonded restorations predictable in vitro? Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 2007;9:107-16.
30. Hannig M, Reinhardt KJ, Bott B. Self-etching primer vs phosphoric acid: an alternative concept for composite-toenamel bonding. Operative Dentistry 1999;24:172-80.