Back to Search Start Over

Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in extended Class II cavities after six years

Authors :
Christian Reinelt
Roland Frankenberger
Albert J. Feilzer
Norbert Krämer
Franklin Garcia-Godoy
Dental Material Sciences
Tandheelkundige Materiaalwetenschappen (ORM, ACTA)
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.

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