Back to Search
Start Over
Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in extended Class II cavities after six years
- Source :
- Krämer, N, García-Godoy, F, Reinelt, C, Feilzer, A J & Frankenberger, R 2011, ' Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in extended Class II cavities after six years ', Dental Materials, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 455-464 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.01.004, Dental Materials, 27(5), 455-464. Elsevier Science, Dental Materials, 27(5), 455-464. Elsevier
- Publication Year :
- 2011
-
Abstract
- ObjectivesIn a controlled prospective split-mouth study, clinical behavior of two different resin composites in extended Class II cavities was observed over six years.MethodsThirty patients received 68 direct resin composite restorations (Solobond M + Grandio: n = 36; Syntac + Tetric Ceram: n = 32) by one dentist in a private practice. All restorations were replacement fillings, 35% of cavities revealed no enamel at the bottom of the proximal box, in 48% of cavities remaining proximal enamel width was ResultsSuccess rate was 100% after six years of clinical service, while the drop out of patients was 0%. Neither materials nor localization of the restoration (upper vs. lower jaw) had a significant influence on clinical outcome in any criterion after six years (p > 0.05; Mann-Whitney U-test). Molar restorations performed worse regarding marginal integrity (4 years), filling integrity (6, 12, 24, 48 months), and tooth integrity (4 and 6 years). Irrespective of the resin composite used, significant changes over time were found for all criteria recorded (Friedman test; p < 0.05). Marginal quality revealed a major portion of overhangs having been clearly reduced after the one year recall (baseline: 44%; 6 months: 65%; 1 year: 47%; 2 years: 6%; 4 years: 4%; and 6 years: 3%). Beyond the 1 year recall, negative step formations significantly increased due to wear (p < 0.05), having been more pronounced in molars (87% bravo after 4 years) than in premolars (51% bravo after 4 years). Tooth integrity significantly deteriorated due to enamel cracks, which increased over time (p < 0.05). Enamel chippings and cracks were significantly more frequent in molars (26% bravo after 4 years to 35% after six years) than in premolars (9% bravo after 4 years, 11% after six years). Restoration integrity over time mainly suffered surface roughness and wear (28% after one year, 75% after two years, 84% after four years, 91% after six years).SignificancesBoth materials performed satisfactorily over the 6-year observation period. Due to the extension of the restorations, wear was clearly visible after six years of clinical service with 91% bravo ratings.
- Subjects :
- Molar
Adult
Male
Materials science
Surface Properties
Resin composite
medicine.medical_treatment
Composite number
Dentistry
Color
Composite Resins
Nanocomposites
Dental Materials
Tooth Fractures
Young Adult
stomatognathic system
Drop out
medicine
Humans
General Materials Science
Bicuspid
Dental Restoration Failure
Prospective Studies
Dental Enamel
Dental Restoration, Permanent
General Dentistry
Enamel paint
business.industry
Dental Marginal Adaptation
Middle Aged
Dental Restoration Wear
Resin Cements
Treatment Outcome
Mechanics of Materials
Private practice
visual_art
Dentin-Bonding Agents
Retreatment
visual_art.visual_art_medium
Female
business
Dental Cavity Preparation
Dental restoration
Follow-Up Studies
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 01095641
- Volume :
- 27
- Issue :
- 5
- Database :
- OpenAIRE
- Journal :
- Dental Materials
- Accession number :
- edsair.doi.dedup.....8d809efa8e358880de758c2d7fbce818
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.01.004