File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid posterior resin-based composites

TitleClinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid posterior resin-based composites
Authors
Issue Date2005
PublisherAmerican Dental Association.
Citation
Journal of American Dental Association, 2005, v. 136 n. 11, p. 1533-1540 How to Cite?
AbstractBackground The authors evaluated clinical performances of a packable and a conventional hybrid resin-based composite used with a self-etch adhesive system. Methods Three dentists placed 105 posterior restorations in 65 adults. They placed a packable (SureFil, Dentsply DeTrey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany) and a conventional (SpectrumTPH, Dentsply DeTrey GmbH) resin-based composite using a self-etch resin adhesive system. The authors evaluated the restorations using Ryge modified criteria, photographs and die stone replicas. Results After 3.5 years, six large SureFil and two SpectrumTPH restorations had failed from bulk fracture and secondary caries, resulting in cumulative survival rates of 81.3 and 92.0 percent, respectively. Failed SureFil restorations generally were larger than the remaining intact restorations. Other ratings were satisfactory, with no significant differences between the two materials for any restoration parameter. Alfa ratings for both materials were approximately 80 percent or greater for marginal discoloration, anatomical form, surface texture and surface staining. Lower percentages of restorations were rated Alfa for color match, marginal integrity and gingival health. No postoperative sensitivity was reported. Net mean occlusal wear (± standard deviation) was 28.9 (± 32.9) micrometers for SureFil and 33.8 (± 29.6) μm for SpectrumTPH restorations; the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions When used with a self-etch adhesive, the 3.5-year clinical performances of both composites were similar and satisfactory for the restoration of Class I and moderate-sized Class II cavities. Clinical Implications The two composites placed in this study have an increased risk of bulk fracture when placed in large intracoronal Class II molar preparations.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/66529
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 1.767
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.661

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPoon, ECMen_HK
dc.contributor.authorSmales, RJen_HK
dc.contributor.authorYip, HKen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-06T05:47:07Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-06T05:47:07Z-
dc.date.issued2005en_HK
dc.identifier.citationJournal of American Dental Association, 2005, v. 136 n. 11, p. 1533-1540en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0002-8177en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/66529-
dc.description.abstractBackground The authors evaluated clinical performances of a packable and a conventional hybrid resin-based composite used with a self-etch adhesive system. Methods Three dentists placed 105 posterior restorations in 65 adults. They placed a packable (SureFil, Dentsply DeTrey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany) and a conventional (SpectrumTPH, Dentsply DeTrey GmbH) resin-based composite using a self-etch resin adhesive system. The authors evaluated the restorations using Ryge modified criteria, photographs and die stone replicas. Results After 3.5 years, six large SureFil and two SpectrumTPH restorations had failed from bulk fracture and secondary caries, resulting in cumulative survival rates of 81.3 and 92.0 percent, respectively. Failed SureFil restorations generally were larger than the remaining intact restorations. Other ratings were satisfactory, with no significant differences between the two materials for any restoration parameter. Alfa ratings for both materials were approximately 80 percent or greater for marginal discoloration, anatomical form, surface texture and surface staining. Lower percentages of restorations were rated Alfa for color match, marginal integrity and gingival health. No postoperative sensitivity was reported. Net mean occlusal wear (± standard deviation) was 28.9 (± 32.9) micrometers for SureFil and 33.8 (± 29.6) μm for SpectrumTPH restorations; the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions When used with a self-etch adhesive, the 3.5-year clinical performances of both composites were similar and satisfactory for the restoration of Class I and moderate-sized Class II cavities. Clinical Implications The two composites placed in this study have an increased risk of bulk fracture when placed in large intracoronal Class II molar preparations.-
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherAmerican Dental Association.en_HK
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of American Dental Associationen_HK
dc.titleClinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid posterior resin-based compositesen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=0002-8177&volume=136&spage=1533&epage=40&date=2005&atitle=Clinical+evaluation+of+packable+and+conventional+posterior+resin-based+hybrid+composites:+results+of+3.5+yearsen_HK
dc.identifier.emailYip, HK: kevin.h.k.yip@hkusua.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityYip, HK=rp00027en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0083-
dc.identifier.hkuros111709en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats