Two-year clinical performance of a nanofiller vs a fine-particle hybrid resin composite

Abstract

The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical performance of the nanofiller resin composite Filtek Supreme (3M ESPE) vs the conventional fine hybrid resin composite Tetric Ceram (Ivoclar Vivadent) in stress-bearing posterior cavities. In accordance with a split mouth study design, 50 patients (35.7+/-11.3 years) received at least one pair of Filtek Supreme and Tetric Ceram restorations in each of two comparable class II cavities. To obtain comparability, the adhesive Scotchbond 1 was used for all the restorations. After 2 years, the restorations (total number 112) were scored according to the Ryge criteria. After 2 years (recall rate 100%), the results (%) of the Ryge evaluation for the two groups Filtek Supreme/Tetric Ceram were marginal adaptation: Alfa 96/96, Bravo 2/2, Charlie 2/0, and Delta 0/2; anatomic form: Alfa 98/98, Bravo 0/0, and Charlie 2/2; secondary caries: Alfa 100/100 and Bravo 0/0; marginal discoloration: Alfa 98/100, Bravo 2/0, and Charlie 0/0; surface: Romeo 95/95, Sierra 4/4, Tango 0/0, and Victor 2/2; and color match: Oscar 46/57, Alfa 50/39, Bravo 2/4, and Charlie 2/0. One Tetric Ceram and one Filtek Supreme restoration showed fractures that needed restorative intervention. No severe postoperative sensitivities were reported within the observation period. All restored teeth remained vital; the integrity of all the teeth was scored Alfa. After 2 years, no statistically significant differences (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test) was found between the two restorative materials investigated. Therefore, Filtek Supreme, based on a new nanofiller technology, has proved efficaciousness for clinical use in stress-bearing posterior cavities.

Clinical Performance of Ormocer, Nanofilled, and Nanoceramic Resin Composites in Class I and Class II Restorations: A Three-year Evaluation

“…A clinically satisfactory performance was reported for the nanofilled resin composite in two one-year and one three-year follow-ups. 21,27,28 In a recent two-year clinical evaluation, 29 Class II restorations of the nanofilled resin composite were compared in a similar intraindividual comparison with the well-known Tetric Ceram. Both restorative materials showed acceptable clinical performance, and the nanofilled resin composite showed no significant difference in overall clinical performance compared to Tetric Ceram.…”

A Five-Year Clinical Evaluation of Direct Nanofilled and Indirect Composite Resin Restorations in Posterior Teeth

“…7 For the first marketed nanofilled resin composite, Filtek Supreme, an acceptable 1-to 3-year performance has been shown. 45,46 Recently published short-term clinical evaluations of different nanohybrid resin composites have reported annual failure rates between 0% and 2.4%. 22,[35][36][37]47 In a study by van Dijken and Pallesen, 48 the annual failure rate of nanohybrid composite was 1.9%, and the fracture of the restoration was the main reason for failure.…”

<sup>99m</sup>Tc in the evaluation of microleakage of composite resin restorations with SonicFill<sup>TM</sup>. An <i>in vitro</i> experimental model

“…The decrease of the polymerization shrinkage and consequent microleakage, can be obtained by an oblique layering technique with increments or design cavities with a low C-factor [1,6]. On the other hand, some changes in restorative materials, made in the past, like improvements in the filler technology and formulation of composite materials, have improved performance of the resins [8,9,12].…”