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
A Randomized 10-year Prospective Follow-up of Class II Nanohybrid and Conventional Hybrid Resin Composite Restorations
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Odontology, Dental Hygiene.
2014 (English)In: Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, ISSN 1461-5185, Vol. 16, no 6, 585-592 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Purpose: To evaluate the 10-year durability of a nanohybrid resin composite in Class II restorations in a randomized controlled intraindividual comparison with its conventional hybrid resin composite predecessor. Materials and Methods: Each of 52 participants received at least two Class II restorations that were as similar as possible. The cavities were chosen at random to be restored with a nanohybrid resin composite (Excite/Tetric EvoCeram (TEC); n = 61) and a conventional hybrid (Excite/Tetric Ceram (TC); n = 61). The restorations were evaluated with slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and then annually for 10 years. The overall performance of the experimental restorations was tested after intra-individual comparison and their ranking was tested using Friedman's two-way ANOVA. The level of significance was set at 5%. Results: Four patient drop-outs with 8 restorations (4TEC, 4TC) were registered during the follow-up. A prediction of the caries risk showed that 16 of the evaluated 52 patients were considered as high risk patients. In total, 22 restorations, 11 TEC (3 premolars, 8 molars) and 11 TC (3 premolars, 8 molars) restorations failed during the 10 years. The main reason for failure was secondary caries (50%). 63% of the recurrent caries lesions were found in high caries risk participants. The overall success rate at 10 years was 80.7%, with an annual failure rate of 1.9%. No statistically significant difference was found in the overall survival rate between the two investigated resin composites. Conclusion: The nanohybrid and the conventional hybrid resin composite showed good clinical effectiveness in extensive Class II restorations during the 10-year study.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2014. Vol. 16, no 6, 585-592 p.
Keyword [en]
dental restorations, clinical, nanofiller, resin composite, posterior
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-104181DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a33202ISI: 000347548800012PubMedID: 25516885OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-104181DiVA: diva2:822726
Available from: 2015-06-17 Created: 2015-06-08 Last updated: 2015-06-17Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

van Dijken, Jan W. V.

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
van Dijken, Jan W. V.
By organisation
Dental Hygiene
Dentistry

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 35 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