Clinical evaluation of two packable posterior composites: 2-year follow-up

Abstract

The clinical performance of two packable posterior composites, Alert (A)-Jeneric/Pentron and SureFil (S)-Dentsply, was evaluated in 33 patients. Each patient received one A and one S restoration, resulting in a total of 66 restorations. The restorations were placed by one operator according to the manufacturer's specifications and were finished and polished after 1 week. Photographs were taken at baseline and after 2 years. Two independent evaluators conducted the clinical evaluation by using modified United States Public Health Service criteria. After 2 years, 60 restorations (30 A and 30 S), 27 class I (16 A and 11 S) and 33 class II (14 A and 19 S) were evaluated in 30 patients. Criterion A for recurrent caries, vitality, and retention was applicable to all 60 restorations. Criterion B was distributed among 40 restorations as follows: surface texture (15 A; 2 S), color (5 A; 6 S), postoperative sensitivity (1 S), marginal discoloration (8 A), marginal adaptation (3 A), and wear resistance (2 A). Data were analyzed using the Exact Fisher and McNemar tests. After 2 years, S showed a significantly better performance than A with respect to surface texture and marginal discoloration. The clinical performance of both materials was considered acceptable over the 2-year period. Further evaluations are necessary for a more in-depth analysis.

Occurrence and Causing Stimuli of Postoperative Sensitivity in Composite Restorations

“…2 Improvements in the materials and the decreasing acceptance of traditional amalgam by patients 3 have both contributed to the establishment of this restorative material as an amalgam alternative in many countries. 2 The demand for tooth-colored restorations [4][5] and discussion about the possible health risks associated with amalgam restorations have increasingly influenced the selection of restorative materials. With the development of improved adhesive and composite systems, resin-based composites have become predictably successful.…”

Longevity of restorations in direct composite resin: literature review

“…In addition to the Ryge criteria, it was used photographs and plaster replicas 24 and it was used as evaluation criteria, the modified rules of the US Public Health Service (USPHS) 25 .…”

Polymerization Shrinkage of Different Types of Composite Resins and Microleakage With and Without Liner in Class II Cavities

“…These allow them to be safely and successfully used in class II restorations. 5,6 Recently, because of an increasing demand for a universal restorative material indicated for all types of direct restorations, including posterior teeth, a new category of resin composite was developed named nanofilled composites. Short-term (one-year) clinical studies have revealed that nanocomposites show high translucency, high polish, and polish retention similar to those of microfilled composites while maintaining physical properties and wear resistance equivalent to those of several hybrid composites 7 and exhibit sufficient compressive strength and wear resistance to justify their use in high stress-bearing areas, such as the occlusal surfaces of posterior teeth.…”