title: A clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and a giomer restorative material: results at eight years.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The authors evaluated the performance of a giomer restorative material (Beautifil, Shofu, Kyoto, Japan) with a self-etching primer (FL-Bond, Shofu) for posterior restorations.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two clinicians placed 26 Class I restorations and 35 Class II restorations in 31 patients ranging in age from 21 to 62 years (mean age, 34 years). Inclusion criteria required patients to have molar-supported permanent dentition free of any edentulous spaces and no clinically significant occlusal interference, as well as one or more permanent molars or premolars requiring new or replacement Class I or II restorations. Two of the authors examined the restorations using modified U.S. Public Health Service/Ryge criteria for color match, marginal adaptation, anatomy, surface roughness, marginal staining, interfacial staining, proximal and occlusal contacts, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity and luster.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The two authors examined all restorations at the one-year recall visit, 58 at the two-year visit, 47 at the three-year visit, 39 at the four-year visit and 41 at the eight-year visit (16 Class I and 25 Class II restorations). During the eight-year period, they detected no changes with respect to surface roughness, postoperative sensitivity or secondary caries. The majority of changes recorded were for marginal adaptation at occlusal (29 percent) and proximal (16 percent) surfaces and marginal staining at occlusal (15 percent) and proximal (32 percent) surfaces. The McNemar test showed significant changes between baseline and the eight-year evaluation only for marginal adaptation at occlusal surfaces (P = .0047) and marginal staining at proximal surfaces (P = .04). None of the restorations failed.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Most of the restorations maintained good quality during the observation period.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Beautiful restorative material and FL-Bond bonding system, when placed in Class I and II preparations, achieved clinically acceptable results after eight years of service.
authors.affiliation: Department of Operative Dentistry, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610-0415, USA. vgordan@dental.ufl.edu
authors.forename: Valeria V
authors.initials: VV
authors.lastname: Gordan
authors.forename: Eduardo
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Mondragon
authors.forename: Ronald E
authors.initials: RE
authors.lastname: Watson
authors.forename: Cyndi
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Garvan
authors.forename: Ivar A
authors.initials: IA
authors.lastname: Mjör
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001641:Bicuspid; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate / Q000737:chemistry; D003116:Color; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry; D001840:Dental Bonding; D003731:Dental Caries / Q000209:etiology; D018772:Dental Marginal Adaptation; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000145:classification / Q000379:methods; D003807:Dentin Sensitivity / Q000209:etiology; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents / Q000737:chemistry; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements / Q000737:chemistry; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D008963:Molar; D055095:Optics and Photonics; D013499:Surface Properties
chemical_list: C508973:Beautifil FL-Bond; C470433:Beautifil composite resin; D003188:Composite Resins; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate