scholarly journals Clinical evaluation of two types of ceramic inlays and onlays after 6 months

2004 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 213-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Jacinta M. Coelho Santos ◽  
Carlos Eduardo Francischone ◽  
Gildo Coelho Santos Júnior ◽  
Eduardo Bresciani ◽  
José Carlos Romanini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Surface Texture ◽  
Glass Ceramic ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Color Match ◽  
Rubber Dam ◽  
Marginal Integrity ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical performance of two types of ceramics: a slurry-powder ceramic (Duceram Plus, Degussa) - D and a hot-pressed leucite-based glass-ceramic (IPS Empress, Ivoclar Vivadent) - IPS. Eighty-six restorations, 44 IPS and 42 D, were made by one operator. A total of 33 onlays and 53 inlays on twenty-seven premolars and 59 molars were cemented in 35 patients of both sexes, mean age 35 years. All restorations were cemented with the dual-resin cement (Variolink, Ivoclar-Vivadent) under rubber dam and were evaluated at the baseline and after six months, using the modified U.S.P.H.S. criteria for postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries, fracture, color match, marginal discoloration, marginal integrity and surface texture. Additionally radiographs and intraoral photographs were carried out. At baseline 86 restorations were analyzed and all of them received Alfa rating, except for the following that received Bravo rating for postoperative sensitivity - IPS (2.27%); D (7.14%); for color match - IPS (2.27%); D (2.38%) and for surface texture - IPS (2.27%); D (11.90%). After 6 months 100% of the restorations were analyzed and the following received Bravo rating: color match - IPS (4.55%) and D (9.52%); surface texture - IPS (2.27%) and D (11.9%); marginal discoloration - IPS (6.82%) and D (4.76%) and marginal integrity - IPS (4.55%) and D (7.14%). The results were submitted to the Fisher and McNemar Statistical Tests. No significant differences were noticed between the two ceramics. Both ceramics demonstrated satisfactory clinical performance after six months.

One Year Clinical Evaluation of Two Different Types of Composite Resins in Posterior Teeth

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 ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Surface Texture ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Marginal Integrity ◽  
Different Types ◽  
One Year ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity

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.

scholarly journals Direct Resin Composite Restorations versus Indirect Composite Inlays: One-Year Results

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 25-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juliano Sartori Mendonça ◽  
José Roberto Pereira Lauris ◽  
Maria Fidela de Lima Navarro ◽  
Ranulfo Gianordoli Neto ◽  
Sérgio Lima Santiago ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surface Texture ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Color Match ◽  
Secondary Caries ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Marginal Integrity ◽  
Indirect Composite ◽  
One Year ◽  
Composite Inlays

Abstract Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of direct resin composite restorations (Tetric Ceram-TC) and indirect composite inlays (Targis-TG) after 12 months. Methods and Materials Seventy-six Class I and II restorations (44 direct and 32 indirect) were inserted in premolars and molars with carious lesions or deficient restorations in 30 healthy patients according to the manufacturer's instructions. Each restoration was evaluated at baseline and after 12 months according to the modified USPHS criteria for color match (CM), marginal discoloration (MD), secondary caries (SC), anatomic form (AF), surface texture (ST), marginal integrity (MI), and pulp sensitivity (PS). Data were analyzed by Fisher and McNemar Chisquare tests. Results No secondary caries and no pulpal sensitivity were observed after 12 months. However, significant changes in marginal discoloration (MD) criteria could be detected between baseline and one-year results for both materials (p<0.05). For marginal integrity (MI) criteria, the differences between baseline and oneyear recall were statistically significant (p<0.05). For marginal integrity (MI) criteria, Tetric Ceram (TC) showed results statistically superior to Targis (TG) in both observation periods (p<0.05). No statistically significant changes in color match (CM), anatomic form (AF), or surface texture (ST) appeared during the observation periods (p>0.05). Conclusions Direct resin composite restorations performed better than indirect composite inlays for marginal integrity, but all restorations were judged to be clinically acceptable. Clinical Significance Tetric Ceram direct restorations and Targis indirect inlays in posterior teeth provide satisfactory clinical performance and the comparison between them showed little difference after one year. Citation Mendonça JS, Neto RG, Santiago SL, Lauris JRP, Navarro MFL, Carvalho RM. Direct Resin Composite Restorations versus Indirect Composite Inlays: One-Year Results. J Contemp Dent Pract [Internet]. 2010 May; 11(3):025-032. Available from: http://www.thejcdp.com/journal/ view/volume11-issue3-santiago.

scholarly journals Clinical performance of class I occlusal composite resin restorations: a multicenter double-blinded randomized clinical trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 288
Author(s):  
Bruno Mendonça Lucena De Veras ◽  
Geórgia Pires dos Santos Menezes ◽  
Hugo Leonardo Mendes Barros ◽  
Marcelya Chrystian Moura Rocha ◽  
Aditonio De Carvalho Monteiro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Dental Restoration ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Class I ◽  
Color Match ◽  
Marginal Integrity ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Resin Restorations

<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study was to evaluate the 6-month clinical performance of class I occlusal composite resin restorations through a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, clinical trial. <strong>Material e Métodos: </strong>Two hundred and eighty class I occlusal restorations were performed in 70 patients (aged between 17 to 50 years).  The restorations were divided into four groups: G1 (Filtek P60/3M ESPE); G2 (Rok/SDI); G3 (Filtek™ P90/3M ESPE); G4 (Evolux/Dentsply). Two pre-calibrated dental practitioners performed and evaluated the restorative procedures regarding to color match, marginal discoloration, recurrent caries, wear (anatomic form) and marginal integrity according to the USPHS criteria. <strong>Resultados: </strong>In 85.8% of the evaluated restorations was observed the ideal score (A) for color match; 91.4% for marginal discoloration; 100% for recurrent caries; 87.7% for wear (anatomic form) and 99.3% for marginal integrity.<strong> Conclusion: </strong>The composite resins used in this study presented satisfactory and similar clinical performance in a 6-month clinical evaluation.</p><p><strong>Keywords</strong></p><p>Dentistry; Composite resins; Permanent dental restoration; Molar; Bicuspid.</p>

scholarly journals Nine-year clinical evaluation of composite resins in Class III restorations

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Fátima Cristina Sá ◽  
Ticiane Cestari Fagundes ◽  
Wagner Baseggio ◽  
Eduardo Bresciani ◽  
Terezinha Jesus Esteves Barata ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Class Iii ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Usphs Criteria ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity

<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>

Survival of Hybrid Laminate Veneers using two different tooth preparation techniques: Randomized Clinical Trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 36-53
Author(s):  
Yara Sayed Attia ◽  
Rana Mahmoud Sherif ◽  
Hanaa Hassan Zaghloul
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
United States Public Health ◽  
Study Groups ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Color Match ◽  
Traditional Technique ◽  
Cad Cam ◽  
Tooth Preparation ◽  
Laminate Veneers ◽  
Preparation Techniques

Abstract The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival of laminate veneers constructed using a recent polymer-infiltrated ceramic network material following the aesthetic pre-evaluative temporary (APT) technique of tooth preparation in comparison to traditional technique. Six patients received 54 laminate veneers. They were divided into two equal groups (n=27) according to the technique of tooth preparation: group T: traditional technique and group A: aesthetic pre-evaluative temporary technique. VITA ENAMIC material was used for CAD/CAM construction of laminate veneers. Cementation was performed using a light cured resin cement. The laminate veneers were evaluated at baseline, after 3, 6 and 12 months according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteriea. The data was collected, tabulated and statistically analyzed. Secondary caries, endodontic complications, cracks and loss of retention were not noted in any laminate veneer. Extensive fractures were not detected in both study groups through the study period. There was a statistically significant decrease of color match criteria between the two groups at the 6 and 12 months recalls. Based on this study, both preparation techniques resulted in successful clinical performance. After 12 months, all the veneers in both groups showed no post-operative sensitivity and all patients were highly satisfied regarding their veneers. However, there was a deterioration in color match criteria through the study period in both study groups.

A New Dual-cure Universal Simplified Adhesive: 18-month Randomized Multicenter Clinical Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
pp. E255-E270
Author(s):  
E Gomes de Albuquerque ◽  
F Warol ◽  
F Signorelli Calazans ◽  
L Augusto Poubel ◽  
S Soares Marins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity

Clinical Relevance Non-carious cervical lesion restorations using a dual-cure universal adhesive in self-etch and etch-and-rinse mode showed satisfactory clinical performance after 18 months. SUMMARY Objectives: The objective of this multicenter, double-blind, split-mouth randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of a new dual-cure universal adhesive system (Futurabond U, Voco GmBH) when applied using different strategies over a period of 18 months. Methods and Materials: Fifty patients participated in this study. Two hundred non-carious cervical lesions were restored using the adhesive Futurabond U according to four adhesive strategies (n=50 per group): only self-etch (SEE), selective enamel etching + self-etch (SET), etch-and-rinse with dry dentin (ERDry), and etch-and-rinse with wet dentin (ERWet). After the adhesive application, cavities were restored using Admira Fusion composite resin. These restorations were evaluated according to FDI World Dental Federation criteria for the following characteristics: retention/fracture, marginal adaptation, marginal staining, postoperative sensitivity, and caries recurrence. Results: After 18 months, only four patients (12 months: one patient, n=4 restorations; and 18 months: three patients, n=12 restorations) were not evaluated. Fourteen restorations were lost after 18 months of clinical evaluation (four for SEE, three for SET, three for ERDry, and four for ERWet). The retention rates for 18 months (95% confidence interval) were 92% (81%–97%) for SEE, 94% (83%–97%) for SET, 94% (83%–97%) for ERDry, and 92% (81%–97%) for ERWet (p&gt;0.05). Thirty-eight restorations were considered to have minor discrepancies in marginal adaptation at the 18-month recall (13 for SEE, 13 for SET, six for ERDry, and six for ERWet; p&gt;0.05). Fourteen restorations were detected as a minor marginal discoloration at the 18-month recall (six for SEE, six for SET, one for ERDry, and one for ERWet; p&gt;0.05). However, all were considered clinically acceptable. No restorations showed postoperative sensitivity or caries recurrence at the time. Conclusion: The clinical performance of the Futurabond U did not depend on the bonding strategy used, and it was considered reliable after 18 months of clinical evaluation, although more marginal discrepancy was observed in the self-etch group.

Quantifying the Strength of a Resin-coated Dental Ceramic

2008 ◽  
Vol 87 (6) ◽  
pp. 542-547 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. Addison ◽  
P.M. Marquis ◽  
G.J.P. Fleming
Keyword(s):  
Surface Texture ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Strengthening Mechanisms ◽  
Hybrid Layer ◽  
Strength Enhancement ◽  
All Ceramic ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Ceramic Restorations ◽  
Abrasive Paper

Resin luting all-ceramic restorations increases clinical performance; however, the strengthening mechanisms are not fully understood. The authors have previously proposed the existence of a resin-ceramic hybrid layer, and the hypothesis tested was that ceramic strength enhancement was conferred by the characteristics of the resin-ceramic hybrid layer. Dentin porcelain discs were polished with a P4000-grade abrasive paper, and half were centrally indented at 9.8 N. Further discs were alumina-air-abraded. Groups of 30 specimens were coated with resin cement thicknesses varying from 0 to 250 ± 20 μm before bi-axial flexure testing. Following investigation of residual stresses by annealing, regression analysis enabled us to calculate the magnitude of ’actual’ strengthening for a theoretical ’zero’ thickness of resin cement on each surface texture. Accounting for resin bulk strengthening, resin cement coating significantly increased the mean strength that was attributed to a resin-ceramic hybrid layer sensitive to surface texture.

Three-year Clinical Performance of Two Giomer Restorative Materials in Restorations

2021 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. E60-E67
Author(s):  
F Ozer ◽  
O Irmak ◽  
O Yakymiv ◽  
A Mohammed ◽  
R Pande ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Class I ◽  
Restorative Material ◽  
Secondary Caries ◽  
Total N ◽  
Marginal Integrity ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity

Clinical Relevance The clinical performance of both conventional and flowable giomer restorative materials was particularly good in Class I restorations after three years of service. SUMMARY This study evaluated and compared the clinical performance of a flowable and a conventional giomer restorative material after three years. Forty-four pairs of restorations (total n=88) were placed in Class I cavities with either a flowable giomer (Beautifil Flow Plus F00; Shofu Inc, Kyoto, Japan) or a conventional giomer restorative material (Beautifil II; Shofu Inc) after the application of a dentin adhesive (FL-Bond II; Shofu Inc) and a flowable liner (Beautifil Flow Plus F03; Shofu Inc). After 3 years, 39 pairs of restorations were evaluated with the modified United States Public Health Service criteria, and digital color photographs of restorations were taken at each patient visit. The evaluation parameters were as follows: color match, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, retention, secondary caries formation, anatomic form, surface texture, and postoperative sensitivity. Evaluations were recorded as a clinically ideal situation (Alpha), a clinically acceptable situation (Bravo), or a clinically unacceptable situation (Charlie). Data were analyzed with Fisher’s exact and McNemar tests (α=0.05). None of the restorations showed retention loss, postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries, or color change. The performance of Beautifil II in terms of marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, and surface anatomic form was significantly lower at the 36-month follow-up than at baseline (p=0.007). There were no significant differences between the baseline and 36-month follow-up scores for the other criteria for Beautifil II (p&gt;0.05). No differences were found between the baseline and the 36-month follow-up scores for any of the criteria for Beautifil Flow Plus F00 (p&gt;0.05). No statistically significant difference in overall clinical performance was found between the 2 materials after 36 months (p&gt;0.05). The three-year clinical performance of both restorative materials (Beautifil Flow Plus F00 and Beautifil II) was very good and not significantly different for any of the parameters evaluated.

scholarly journals The One-Year In Vivo Comparison of Lithium Disilicate and Zirconium Dioxide Inlays

Materials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (11) ◽  
pp. 3102
Author(s):  
Rini Behera ◽  
Lora Mishra ◽  
Darshan Devang Divakar ◽  
Abdulaziz A. Al-Kheraif ◽  
Naomi Ranjan Singh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Zirconium Dioxide ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Study Groups ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Internal Surfaces ◽  
Colour Match ◽  
One Year ◽  
The One

The objective of the present study was to evaluate the one-year clinical performance of lithium disilicate (LD) and zirconium dioxide (ZrO2) class II inlay restorations. Thirty healthy individuals who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled for the study. The patients were randomly divided into two study groups (n = 15): LD (IPS e.max press) and ZrO2 (Dentcare Zirconia). In the ZrO2 group, the internal surfaces of the inlays were sandblasted and silanized with Monobond N (Ivoclar, Leichsteistein, Germany). In the LD group, the internal surfaces of the inlays were etched with 5% hydrofluoric acid. The ceramic inlays were cemented with self-cure resin cement (Multilink N). Clinical examinations were performed using modified United State Public Health Codes and Criteria (USPHS) after 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 months and 1 year. The one-year survival rate was evaluated. In total, one failure was observed in the ZrO2 group. The survival probability after 1 year for the ZrO2 inlays was 93%, and for the LD inlays was 100%, which was statistically insignificant. The differences between both groups for most USPHS criteria (except for colour match) were statistically insignificant. Within the imitations of the present study, the lithium disilicate- and zirconia dioxide-based inlays exhibited comparable clinical performances. However, the colour and translucency match was superior for the lithium disilicate restorations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document