One-year clinical evaluation of posterior packable resin composite restorations.
This study evaluated the clinical performance of four packable resin composite restorative materials in posterior teeth (Class I and II) compared with one hybrid composite after one year. Eighty-four restorations were placed in 16 patients. Each patient received at least five restorations. The tested materials were: (1) Solitaire + Solid Bond; (2) ALERT + Bond-1; (3) Surefil + Prime & Bond NT (4) Filtek P60 + Single Bond and; (5) TPH Spectrum + Prime & Bond 2.1. All restorations were made using rubber dam isolation, and the cavity design was restricted to the elimination of carious tissue. Deeper cavities were covered with calcium hydroxide and/or glass ionomer cement. In shallow and medium cavities, no protection was performed except for the respective adhesive system used in each group. Each adhesive system and resin composite was placed according to the manufacturer's instructions. One week later, the restorations were finished/polished and evaluated according to the USPHS modified criteria. All patients attended the one-year recall, and the 84 restorations were evaluated at that time based on the same evaluation criteria. The scores were submitted to statistical analysis (Chi-square test, p<0.05). Solitaire and TPH showed some fractures at marginal ridges. Solitaire, ALERT and TPH showed some concerns related to color match and surface texture. Surefil and Filtek P60 showed an excellent clinical performance after one year.
Loguercio
A D
AD
Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Odontologia, Departmento de Materiais Dentários, Brazil.
Reis
A
A
Rodrigues Filho
L E
LE
Busato
A L
AL
D003188:Composite Resins; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans
C406265:Alert composite resin; D003188:Composite Resins; C438835:Filtek P60 Composite Resin; C113049:Solitaire composite resin; C420128:Spectrum composite resin; C403464:SureFil packable composite