title: One-year retrospective clinical evaluation of hybrid composite restorations placed in United Kingdom general practices.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The purpose of this study was to assess Pertac II restorations placed in general dental practice.
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 86 restorations (14 Class I, 10 Class II, 17 Class III, 5 Class IV, and 40 Class V) using a hybrid composite material (Pertac II) placed in 56 patients (mean age, 39 years) in 5 dental practices in the United Kingdom were assessed after 1 year by a trained evaluator and the dental practitioner who had placed the restoration. All the restorations were assessed for anatomic form, marginal adaptation, surface roughness, sensitivity or discomfort, gingival condition, and the presence or absence of secondary caries.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Thirty-five (43%) restorations were placed in load-bearing situations, 9% of which were assessed as being in "heavy" occlusion. Five (6%) of the restorations were lost (all Class V restorations), 4 from premolars and 1 from a molar. Four were in wedge-shaped cavities and 1 small restoration was actually dislodged during examination. The remaining 81 (94%) restorations were found to be intact, with no secondary caries detected. A high percentage of optimal scores were recorded for both anatomic form and surface roughness.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  It is concluded that the evaluation demonstrated satisfactory clinical performance of Pertac II restorations after 1 year of clinical service in the wide variety of clinical situations seen in general dental practice. However, the potential for failure of hybrid composite materials in Class V situations appears high. It may be argued that clinicians who wish to use a resin-based material in a Class V situation should use a compomer or microfilled composite.
authors.affiliation: University of Birmingham School of Dentistry, Primary Dental Care Research Group, St. Chad's Queensway, Birmingham B4 6NN, United Kingdom. f.j.t.burke@bham.ac.uk
authors.forename: F J
authors.initials: FJ
authors.lastname: Burke
authors.forename: R J
authors.initials: RJ
authors.lastname: Crisp
authors.forename: T J
authors.initials: TJ
authors.lastname: Bell
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Healy
authors.forename: B
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Mark
authors.forename: R
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: McBirnie
authors.forename: K L
authors.initials: KL
authors.lastname: Osborne-Smith
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001641:Bicuspid; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000592:standards; D001732:Bite Force; D003116:Color; D020770:Compomers / Q000592:standards; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000592:standards; D003731:Dental Caries / Q000145:classification; D003737:Dental Cavity Preparation / Q000145:classification; D018772:Dental Marginal Adaptation; D019232:Dental Restoration Failure; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000145:classification / Q000592:standards*; D003807:Dentin Sensitivity / Q000145:classification; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D005792:General Practice, Dental; D005884:Gingival Hemorrhage / Q000145:classification; D006801:Humans; D008963:Molar; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D013499:Surface Properties; D014075:Tooth Discoloration / Q000145:classification; D006113:United Kingdom
chemical_list: D020770:Compomers; D003188:Composite Resins; C079764:Pertac hybrid; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate