Fine-hybrid and nanohybrid restorative materials show similar durability in Class II cavities.
METHODS
This was a randomised trial.


METHODS
Individuals who required a minimum of two replacement fillings were recruited. Restorations were placed using either Grandio bonded with Solobond M (Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany) or Tetric Ceram bonded with Syntac (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein).


METHODS
At the initial recall (baseline, ie, within 2 weeks), and after 6 months, 1 and 2 years, all restorations were assessed according to the modified United States Public Health Service (US PHS) criteria by two independent investigators using mirrors, probes, bitewing radiographs, impressions and intra-oral photographs. Recall assessments were not performed by the clinician who initially placed the restorations.


RESULTS
Both recall rate and survival rate were 100% after 4 years of clinical service. No significant difference was found between the restorative materials. Hypersensitivities were significantly reduced over time (P < 0.05; Friedman test). A significant deterioration over time was found for the criteria of marginal integrity (66% sufficient after 4 years),tooth integrity (15% sufficient), filling integrity (73% sufficient) and proximal contact. Stereo light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis of restoration margins revealed differences in the amount of perfect margins in favour of Tetric Ceram (P <0.05).


CONCLUSIONS
Both materials performed satisfactorily over the 4-year observation period. Because of the extension of the restorations, wear was clearly visible after 4 years of clinical service with 50% sufficient ratings.
Balevi
Ben
B
Private practitioner, affiliated with Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.