File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer, nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorative systems in posterior teeth

TitleTwo-year clinical evaluation of ormocer, nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorative systems in posterior teeth
Authors
KeywordsClinical evaluation
Nanofill composite
Nanohybrid composite
Ormocer
Issue Date2008
PublisherQuintessence Publishing Co. Ltd..
Citation
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, 2008, v. 10 n. 4, p. 315-322 How to Cite?
AbstractPurpose: To evaluate and compare the 2-year clinical performance of an ormocer, a nanohybrid, and a nanofill resin composite with that of a microhybrid composite in restorations of small occlusal cavities made in posterior teeth. Materials and Methods: Thirty-five patients, each with 4 occlusal restorations under occlusion, were enrolled in this study. A total of 140 restorations was placed, 25% for each material: an ormocer-based composite, Admira; a nanohybrid resin composite, Tetric EvoCeram; a nanofill resin composite, Filtek Supreme; and a microhybrid resin composite, Tetric Ceram. Two operators placed all restorations according to the manufacturers' instructions. One week after placement, the restorations were finished/polished and patients were advised to return for follow-up at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. All patients attended the 2-year visit where the clinical performance of all restorations was evaluated. Two independent examiners made all evaluations according to the USPHS modified Ryge criteria immediately after placement of restorations and at subsequent recall visits. The changes in the USPHS parameters during the 2-year period were an-alyzed with the Friedman test. Comparison of the baseline scores with those at the recall visits was made using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: All materials showed only minor changes, and no differences were detected between their performance at baseline and after 2 years. Only one ormocer and one microhybrid composite restoration had failed after 2 years. No failure was detected in nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorations. Regarding the clinical performance, there were no statistically significant differences among the materials used (p > 0.05). Conclusion: After 2 years, the ormocer, nanohybrid, and nanofill composites showed acceptable clinical performance similar to that of the microhybrid resin composite.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/231038
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 1.594
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.486

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMahmoud, SH-
dc.contributor.authorEl-Embaby, AE-
dc.contributor.authorAbdallah, AM-
dc.contributor.authorHamama, HHHE-
dc.date.accessioned2016-09-01T09:16:43Z-
dc.date.available2016-09-01T09:16:43Z-
dc.date.issued2008-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Adhesive Dentistry, 2008, v. 10 n. 4, p. 315-322-
dc.identifier.issn1461-5185-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/231038-
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To evaluate and compare the 2-year clinical performance of an ormocer, a nanohybrid, and a nanofill resin composite with that of a microhybrid composite in restorations of small occlusal cavities made in posterior teeth. Materials and Methods: Thirty-five patients, each with 4 occlusal restorations under occlusion, were enrolled in this study. A total of 140 restorations was placed, 25% for each material: an ormocer-based composite, Admira; a nanohybrid resin composite, Tetric EvoCeram; a nanofill resin composite, Filtek Supreme; and a microhybrid resin composite, Tetric Ceram. Two operators placed all restorations according to the manufacturers' instructions. One week after placement, the restorations were finished/polished and patients were advised to return for follow-up at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. All patients attended the 2-year visit where the clinical performance of all restorations was evaluated. Two independent examiners made all evaluations according to the USPHS modified Ryge criteria immediately after placement of restorations and at subsequent recall visits. The changes in the USPHS parameters during the 2-year period were an-alyzed with the Friedman test. Comparison of the baseline scores with those at the recall visits was made using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: All materials showed only minor changes, and no differences were detected between their performance at baseline and after 2 years. Only one ormocer and one microhybrid composite restoration had failed after 2 years. No failure was detected in nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorations. Regarding the clinical performance, there were no statistically significant differences among the materials used (p > 0.05). Conclusion: After 2 years, the ormocer, nanohybrid, and nanofill composites showed acceptable clinical performance similar to that of the microhybrid resin composite.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherQuintessence Publishing Co. Ltd..-
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Adhesive Dentistry-
dc.subjectClinical evaluation-
dc.subjectNanofill composite-
dc.subjectNanohybrid composite-
dc.subjectOrmocer-
dc.titleTwo-year clinical evaluation of ormocer, nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorative systems in posterior teeth-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailHamama, HHHE: hamama@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityHamama, HHHE=rp02187-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.pmid18792703-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-51549110772-
dc.identifier.volume10-
dc.identifier.issue4-
dc.identifier.spage315-
dc.identifier.epage322-
dc.publisher.placeUK-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats