title: Ten-year Clinical Performance of Posterior Resin Composite Restorations.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To investigate the clinical behavior of two different resin-based restorative systems in Class II cavities in a controlled prospective split-mouth study over 10 years.
  
  
  METHODS
  Thirty patients received 68 resin composite restorations (Solobond M + Grandio: n = 36; Syntac + Tetric Ceram: n = 32) by one dentist in a private practice. 35% of cavities revealed no enamel at the bottom of the proximal box, 48% of cavities provided < 0.5 mm of remaining proximal enamel. Restorations were examined according to modified USPHS criteria at baseline, after 6 months, and 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 years.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Twenty-nine out of 30 patients attended the 10-year recall. The overall success rate of all restorations was 96.9%. One Grandio restoration suffered marginal fracture with exposed dentin and one Tetric Ceram restoration failed due to cusp fracture. After 10 years, Grandio showed higher surface roughness (p = 0.03) and less color match (p = 0.024; Mann-Whitney U-test). Molar restorations performed worse than premolar fillings regarding marginal integrity (4 and 10 years), filling integrity (4, 8, and 10 years), and tooth integrity (4, 8, and 10 years). The main reasons for degradation of resin composites were chipping and cracks in molar restorations after 8 years. Beyond the 4-year recall, marginal staining increased (43% bravo for stained margins at four years, 52% at 8 years, and 71% at 10 years). Tooth integrity deteriorated significantly due to more enamel cracks and chipping over time (9% at baseline and 89% after 10 years (p<0.05).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Direct resin composite restorations performed satisfactorily over 10 years of clinical service.
authors.forename: Norbert
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Krämer
authors.forename: Christian
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Reinelt
authors.forename: Roland
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Frankenberger
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001641:Bicuspid / Q000473:pathology; D003116:Color; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry*; D003737:Dental Cavity Preparation / Q000145:classification; D003743:Dental Enamel / Q000293:injuries; D018772:Dental Marginal Adaptation; D003764:Dental Materials / Q000737:chemistry*; D019232:Dental Restoration Failure; D019554:Dental Restoration Wear; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000145:classification*; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents / Q000737:chemistry; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D008963:Molar / Q000473:pathology; D011446:Prospective Studies; D019279:Resin Cements / Q000737:chemistry; D013499:Surface Properties; D014082:Tooth Fractures / Q000209:etiology; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D055815:Young Adult
chemical_list: D003188:Composite Resins; D003764:Dental Materials; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; C509998:Grandio; D019279:Resin Cements; C425825:Solobond M; C078484:Syntac dentine adhesive; C121818:Tetric ceram