Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical evaluation of two packable posterior composites: 2-year follow-up

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The clinical performance of two packable posterior composites, Alert (A)—Jeneric/Pentron and SureFil™ (S)—Dentsply, was evaluated in 33 patients. Each patient received one A and one S restoration, resulting in a total of 66 restorations. The restorations were placed by one operator according to the manufacturer’s specifications and were finished and polished after 1 week. Photographs were taken at baseline and after 2 years. Two independent evaluators conducted the clinical evaluation by using modified United States Public Health Service criteria. After 2 years, 60 restorations (30 A and 30 S), 27 class I (16 A and 11 S) and 33 class II (14 A and 19 S) were evaluated in 30 patients. Criterion A for recurrent caries, vitality, and retention was applicable to all 60 restorations. Criterion B was distributed among 40 restorations as follows: surface texture (15 A; 2 S), color (5 A; 6 S), postoperative sensitivity (1 S), marginal discoloration (8 A), marginal adaptation (3 A), and wear resistance (2 A). Data were analyzed using the Exact Fisher and McNemar tests. After 2 years, S showed a significantly better performance than A with respect to surface texture and marginal discoloration. The clinical performance of both materials was considered acceptable over the 2-year period. Further evaluations are necessary for a more in-depth analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abdalla AI, Alhadainy HA (1996) 2-year clinical evaluation of class I posterior composites. Am J Dent 9:150–152

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Al-Sharaa KA, Watts DC (2003) Stickiness prior to setting of some light cured resin-composites. Dent Mater 19:182–187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A (2005) Polymerization contraction of resin composite vs. energy and power density of light-cure. Eur J Oral Sci 113:417–421

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bayne SC, Schmalz G (2005) Reprinting the classic article on USPHS evaluation methods for measuring the clinical research performance of restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 9:209–214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bayne SC, Taylor DF, Heymann HO (1992) Protection hypothesis for composite wear. Dent Mater 8:305–309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bayne SC, Heymann HO, Swift EJ (1994) Update on dental composite restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 125:687–701

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bernhardt O, Gesch D, Splieth C, Schwahn C, Mack F, Kocher T, Meyer G, John U, Kordass B (2004) Risk factors for high occlusal wear scores in a population-based sample: results of the Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP). Int J Prosthodont 17:333–339

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Blalock JS, Chan DC, Browning WD, Callan R, Hackman S (2006) Measurement of clinical wear of two packable composites after 6 months in service. J Oral Rehabil 3:59–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brunthaler A, Konig F, Lucas T, Sperr W, Schedle A (2003) Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth. Clin Oral Investig 7:63–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chen HY, Manhart J, Hickel R, Kunzelmann KH (2001) Polymerization contraction stress in light-cured packable composite resins. Dent Mater 17:253–259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cobb DS, MacGregor KM, Vargas MA, Denehy GE (2000) The physical properties of packable and conventional posterior resin-based composites: a comparison. J Am Dent Assoc 131:1610–1615

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Downer MC, Azli NA, Bedi R, Moles DR, Setchell DJ (1999) How long do routine dental restorations last? A systematic review. Br Dent J 187:432–439

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Duke ES (2000) Packable composites for posterior clinical applications. Compend Contin Educ Dent 21:604–605

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ernst CP, Martin M, Stuff S, Willershausen B (2001) Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for posterior teeth after 3 years. Clin Oral Investig 5:148–155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ernst CP, Canbek K, Aksogan K, Willershausen B (2003) Two-year clinical performance of a packable posterior composite with and without a flowable composite liner. Clin Oral Investig 7:129–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ferracane JL, Choi KK, Condon JR (1999) In vitro wear of packable dental composites. Compend Contin Educ Dent 25:S60–S66 (quiz S74)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hickel R, Manhart J (2001) Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent 3:45–64

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jacobsen T (2003) Bonding of resin to dentin. Interactions between materials, substrate and operators. Swed Dent J (160):1–66 (Suppl)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kelsey WP, Latta MA, Shaddy RS, Stanislav CM (2000) Physical properties of three packable resin-composite restorative materials. Oper Dent 25:331–335

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kohler B, Rasmusson CG, Odman P (2000) A five-year clinical evaluation of class II composite resin restorations. J Dent 28:111–116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lee I-B, Son H-H, Um C-M (2003) Rheologic properties of flowable, conventional hybrid, and condensable composite resins. Dent Mater 19:298–307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Leinfelder KF (1996) A conservative approach to placing posterior composite restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 127:738–743

    Google Scholar 

  23. Loguercio AD, Reis A, Rodrigues Filho LE, Busato ALS (2001) One-year clinical evaluation of posterior packable resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 26:427–434

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Loguercio AD, Reis A, Hernandez PA, Macedo RP, Busato AL (2006) 3-Year clinical evaluation of posterior packable composite resin restorations. J Oral Rehabil 33:144–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lopes LG, Cefaly DFG, Franco EB, Mondelli RFL, Lauris JRP, Navarro MFL (2002) Clinical evaluation of two “packable” posterior composite resins. Clin Oral Investig 6:79–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lopes LG, Cefaly DFG, Franco EB, Mondelli RFL, Lauris JRP, Navarro MFL (2003) Clinical evaluation of two “packable” posterior composite resins: two-year results. Clin Oral Investig 7:123–128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lutz F, Krejci I (1999) Resin composites in the post-amalgam age. Compend Contin Educ Dent 20:1138–1148

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Manhart J, Kunzelmann K-H, Chen HY, Hickel R (2000) Mechanical properties and wear behavior of light-cured packable composite resins. Dent Mater 16:33–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Manhart J, Chen HY, Hickel R (2001) The suitability of packable resin-based composites for posterior restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 132:639–645

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R (2004) Buonocore memorial lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 29:481–508

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Nagem Filho H, D’Azevedo MTFS, Nagem HD, Marsola FP (2003) Surface roughness of composite resins after finishing and polishing. Braz Dent J 14:37–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Obici AC, Sinhoreti MA, de Goes MF, Consani S, Sobrinho LC (2002) Effect of the photo-activation method on polymerization shrinkage of restorative composites. Oper Dent 27:192–198

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Opdam NJ, Roeters JJ, Joosten M, Veeke O (2002) Porosities and voids in class I restorations placed by six operators using a packable or syringable composite. Dent Mater 18:58–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Perdigão J, Lopes M (1999) Dentin bonding—questions for the new millennium. J Adhes Dent 1:191–209

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Perry R, Kugel G (2000) Two-year clinical evaluation of a high-density posterior restorative material. Compend Contin Educ Dent 21:1067–1078

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Perry R, Kugel G, Leinfelder KF (1999) One-year clinical evaluation of Surefil packable composite. Compend Contin Educ Dent 20:544–553

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Pigno MA, Hatch JP, Rodrigues-Garcia RC, Sakai S, Rugh JD (2001) Severity, distribution, and correlates of occlusal tooth wear in a sample of Mexican-American and European-American adults. Int J Prosthodont 14:65–70

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Poon EC, Smales RJ, Yip KH (2005) Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid posterior resin-based composites: results at 3.5 years. J Am Dent Assoc 136:1533–1540

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Rahiotis C, Tzoutzas J, Kakaboura A (2004) In vitro marginal adaptation of high-viscosity resin composite restorations bonded to dentin cavities. J Adhes Dent 6:49–53

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Reis AF, Giannini M, Lovadino JR, Ambrosano GM (2003) Effects of various finishing systems on the surface roughness and staining susceptibility of packable composite resins. Dent Mater 19:12–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Roulet JF (1997) Benefits and disadvantages of tooth-coloured alternatives to amalgam. J Dent 25(6):459–473

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Ryba TM, Dunn WJ, Murchison DF (2002) Surface roughness of various packable composites. Oper Dent 27:243–247

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Ryge G (1980) Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 30:347–358

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Souza FB, Guimaraes RP, Silva CH (2005) A clinical evaluation of packable and microhybrid resin composite restorations: one-year report. Quintessence Int 36:41–48

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Taylor DF, Bayne SC, Sturdevant JR, Wilder AD (1989) Comparison of direct and indirect methods for analyzing wear of posterior composite restorations. Dent Mater 5:157–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Turkun LS, Turkun M, Ozata F (2003) Two-year clinical evaluation of a packable resin-based composite. J Am Dent Assoc 134:1205–1212

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Turkun LS, Turkun M, Ozata F (2005) Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for a period of 3 years. Quintessence Int 36:365–372

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Uno S, Asmussen E (1991) Marginal adaptation of a restorative resin polymerized at reduced rate. Scand J Dent Res 99:440–444

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. van Dijken JW (2003) A 6-year clinical evaluation of class I poly-acid modified resin composite/resin composite laminate restorations cured with a two-step curing technique. Dent Mater 19:423–428

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Wilson MA, Cowan AJ, Randall RC, Crisp RJ, Wilson NHF (2002) A practice-based, randomized, controlled clinical trial of a new resin composite restorative: one-year results. Oper Dent 27:423–429

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Yip KH, Poon BK, Chu FC, Poon EC, Kong FY, Smales RJ (2003) Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin-based composites for posterior restorations in permanent teeth: results at 12 months. J Am Dent Assoc 134:1581–1589

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Operative Dentistry, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Alameda Dr. Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla 9-75, Bauru, São Paulo, 17012-901, Brazil

    T. C. Fagundes, T. J. E. Barata, E. Bresciani & M. F. L. Navarro

  2. Department of Operative Dentistry, University of North Paraná, Londrina, Paraná, Brazil

    D. F. G. Cefaly

  3. Military Police of Bauru, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil

    M. F. F. Jorge

Authors
  1. T. C. Fagundes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. J. E. Barata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. Bresciani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. F. G. Cefaly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. F. F. Jorge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. F. L. Navarro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. F. L. Navarro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fagundes, T.C., Barata, T.J.E., Bresciani, E. et al. Clinical evaluation of two packable posterior composites: 2-year follow-up. Clin Oral Invest 10, 197–203 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-006-0059-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-006-0059-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation