Clinical evaluation of two posterior composite resins: two-year results.
Two composite resins were evaluated for clinical acceptability as restorative materials in Class I and II cavities over a 2-year-period. In addition, dispersed phase alloy was evaluated for comparison. All restorations were assessed for anatomical form, marginal integrity and marginal leakage using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. At the 2-year recall, 96% of the composites and 100% of the amalgams were rated 'alpha' or 'bravo', using the parameters of assessment defined in this study. However, a significant number of shifts from the baseline, within the level of acceptability, had occurred. The two composites showed the greatest number of shifts for anatomical form and marginal leakage, while there were no differences between the composites and the amalgam for shifts in marginal integrity. Although a very high level of acceptability was determined for all of the materials, the frequency of rating change within categories for the composites was a cause of concern with regard to their long-term clinical use.
McGill University Faculty of Dentistry, Montreal, Canada.
I
I
Stangel
R Y
RY
Barolet
D000180:Acrylic Resins; D001641:Bicuspid; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; D003188:Composite Resins; D003722:Dental Alloys; D003723:Dental Amalgam; D003763:Dental Leakage / Q000517:prevention & control; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D008855:Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; D008963:Molar; D011109:Polymethacrylic Acids; D011140:Polyurethanes; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D013499:Surface Properties; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires
D000180:Acrylic Resins; C029012:Composite Dental Resin; D003188:Composite Resins; D003722:Dental Alloys; D011109:Polymethacrylic Acids; D011140:Polyurethanes; C033470:Dispersalloy; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; D003723:Dental Amalgam; C046503:formula F 70