umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Clinical evaluation of two packable posterior composites: a five-year follow-up
Show others and affiliations
2009 (English)In: The Journal of the American Dental Association (1939), ISSN 0002-8177, E-ISSN 1943-4723, Vol. 140, no 4, 447-54 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND: Research has suggested that packable resin-based composites inserted with a placement technique similar to amalgam condensation can reduce the sensitivity associated with posterior restorations. The authors evaluated the clinical performance, including associated sensitivity, of two packable composites in a randomized five-year clinical trial. METHODS: A single operator randomly placed two restorations in each of 33 patients: one restoration consisting of Alert (Jeneric/Pentron, Wallingford, Conn.) and the other consisting of SureFil (Dentsply/Caulk, Milford, Del.). There were 30 Class I and 36 Class II restorations. Two independent evaluators evaluated the restorations by using modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria. The authors analyzed data by means of the Fisher, chi(2) and McNemar tests at P < .05. RESULTS: Of 60 restorations evaluated at five years, two Class II restorations (one SureFil, one Alert) failed. All other restorations received the highest score possible for sensitivity and vitality. The only difference between the composites at the five-year recall was the significantly better surface texture of SureFil. The authors observed significantly different scores between the baseline and at five years for marginal discoloration (Alert and SureFil), surface texture (Alert and SureFil) and color (SureFil). CONCLUSIONS: Both packable resin-based composites showed excellent durability during the five-year follow-up. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The investigated resin-based composites are suitable for posterior restorations.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2009. Vol. 140, no 4, 447-54 p.
Keyword [en]
Adhesives, dental restoration, resin-based composites, randomized controlled clinical trial
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-21688PubMedID: 19339534OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-21688DiVA: diva2:213657
Available from: 2009-04-28 Created: 2009-04-16 Last updated: 2017-12-13Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

PubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
van Dijken, Jan W V
By organisation
Odontology
In the same journal
The Journal of the American Dental Association (1939)

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 116 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf