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
Four-year clinical evaluation of Class II nano-hybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch and a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Odontology.
Institute of Odontology, Faculty of Health Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
2011 (English)In: Journal of Dentistry, ISSN 0300-5712, E-ISSN 1879-176X, Vol. 39, no 1, 16-25 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this prospective clinical trial was to evaluate the 4-year clinical performance of an ormocer-based nano-hybrid resin composite (Ceram X; Dentsply/DeTrey) in Class II restorations placed with a one-step self-etch (Xeno III; Dentsply/DeTrey) and two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Ivoclar Vivadent).

METHODS: Seventy-eight participants received at random at least two, as similar as possible, Class II restorations of the nano-hybrid resin composite bonded with either a single step self-etch adhesive or a control 2-step etch-and-rinse adhesive. The 165 restorations were evaluated using slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and then yearly during 4 years.

RESULTS: 162 restorations were evaluated at 4 years. Postoperative sensitivity was observed in 6 patients (3 Xeno III, 3 Exite) between 1-3 weeks. Eleven failed restorations (6.8%) were observed during the follow up. Seven in the one-step self-etch adhesive group (7.7%) and four in the 2-step etch-and-rinse group (5.6%). This resulted in non-significant different annual failure rates of 1.9% and 1.4%, respectively. Fracture of restoration was the main reason for failure.

CONCLUSION: The ormocer-based nano-hybrid resin composite showed a good clinical performance in Class II cavities during the 4 year evaluation. No significant difference was seen in overall clinical effectiveness between the two adhesives.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2011. Vol. 39, no 1, 16-25 p.
Keyword [en]
dental restorations, clinical, composite resin, nano, posterior, self-etch adhesive
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-37327DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.09.006ISI: 000286849500003PubMedID: 20933047OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-37327DiVA: diva2:359289
Available from: 2010-10-27 Created: 2010-10-27 Last updated: 2017-12-12Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
van Dijken, Jan W V
By organisation
Department of Odontology
In the same journal
Journal of Dentistry
Dentistry

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 81 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