Clinical evaluation of four anterior composite resins over five years

1992 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 246-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.J. Smales ◽  
D.C. Gerke
1998 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 70-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl Gösta Rasmusson ◽  
Birgitta Köhler ◽  
Per ödman

2002 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 79-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Lopes ◽  
D. Cefaly ◽  
E. Franco ◽  
R. Mondelli ◽  
J. Lauris ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 26-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ranuifo Gianordoli Neto ◽  
Sérgio Lima Santiago ◽  
Juliano Sartori Mendonça ◽  
Vanara Florëncio Passos ◽  
José Roberto Pereira Lauris ◽  
...  

Abstract Aim The aim of this study was to assess the clinical performance of two adhesive restorative systems (Single Bond/Filtek P-60 and Single Bond/Filtek Z-250) in posterior teeth using a modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) system. Methods and Materials A total of 70 restorations were placed in molars and premolars in 30 patients (14 females and 16 males; 18-40 years) by one operator. All restorations were directly evaluated by two examiners at baseline, six months, and 12 months using the following modified USPHS rating criteria: marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, surface texture, contour, postoperative sensitivity, and recurrent caries. Results At six and 12 months all restorations were available for evaluation of marginal discoloration, surface texture, contour, postoperative sensitivity, and recurrent caries that remained with 100% Alpha-ratings at recalls for both restorative systems. Marginal integrity for P-60 was scored as 94.3% and 91.4% Alpha at six and 12 months, respectively, and rates for Z-250 were 100% and 97.1% Alpha at six and 12 months, respectively. Statistical analysis was completed with Fisher's exact and McNemar Chi-square tests at a significance level of 5% (P<0.05). Conclusion All restorations were clinically satisfactory and no significant differences were found among them. Clinical Significance Posterior resin composite restorations placed under appropriate conditions provide a satisfactory clinical performance. Citation Gianordoli Neto R, Santiago SL, Mendonça JS, Passos VF, Lauris RP, Navarro MFdeL. One Year Clinical Evaluation of Two Different Types of Composite Resins in Posterior Teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 May; (9)4:026-033.


1989 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. J. Tyas ◽  
V. T. Truong ◽  
M. Goldman ◽  
D. R. Beech

1989 ◽  
Vol 62 (6) ◽  
pp. 627-632 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hideaki Shintani ◽  
Naoki Satou ◽  
Junko Satou

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Fátima Cristina Sá ◽  
Ticiane Cestari Fagundes ◽  
Wagner Baseggio ◽  
Eduardo Bresciani ◽  
Terezinha Jesus Esteves Barata ◽  
...  

<p><strong>Objective</strong>: The aim of this study was to evaluate the nine-year clinical performance of Class III composite restorations using two microhybrid anterior composite resins [Magic™-Vigodent/(F) and Z100™-3M ESPE/(Z)]. <strong>Material</strong> <strong>and</strong> M<strong>ethods</strong>: The study was a randomized controlled trial, following the split mouth design. Seventy restorations were placed, thirty-five for each resin composite into 35 patients. The restorations were placed by one operator according to the manufacturers’ specifications. Two independent evaluators conducted the clinical evaluation using modified USPHS criteria. After nine-years, 56 restorations (28F-28Z) were evaluated. Data were analyzed using Chi-square, Exact Fisher and McNemar tests (p&lt;0.05). <strong>Results</strong>: No postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries and loss of anatomic form was observed after nine-years for both composites. There were no significant differences between the two composites tested at baseline and after nine-years. Significant differences for Z and F restorations between baseline and nine-year with respect to color matching and for F regarding the marginal integrity were detected. <strong>Conclusion</strong>: The clinical performance of both materials was considered acceptable after the 9-year evaluation.</p>


2003 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 123-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. G. Lopes ◽  
D. F. G. Cefaly ◽  
E. B. Franco ◽  
R. F. L. Mondelli ◽  
J. R. P. Lauris ◽  
...  

1975 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 407-416 ◽  
Author(s):  
K.F. Leinfelder ◽  
T.B. Sluder ◽  
C.L. Sockwell ◽  
W.D. Strickland ◽  
J.T. Wall

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document