3-Year clinical evaluation of posterior packable composite resin restorations

• Published in: Journal of oral rehabilitation 2006-02, Vol.33 (2), p.144-151
• Main Authors: LOGUERCIO, A. D., REIS, A., HERNANDEZ, P. A. G., MACEDO, R. P., BUSATO, A. L. S.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: 3-year clinical evaluation; Acetone; Bicuspid; Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate - therapeutic use; clinical evaluation; composite resin; Composite Resins - therapeutic use; Dental Marginal Adaptation; Dental Restoration, Permanent - methods; Dentin-Bonding Agents - therapeutic use; Dentistry; Epoxy Compounds - therapeutic use; Humans; Methacrylates - therapeutic use; Molar; packable composite; Polymethacrylic Acids - therapeutic use; posterior tooth restoration; Prosthesis Coloring; Surface Properties; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0305-182X; 1365-2842
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01539.x

summary  This study evaluated the clinical performance of four packable resin composite restorative materials in posterior teeth (Class I and II) compared with one hybrid composite after 3 years. Eighty‐four restorations were placed in 16 patients. The tested materials were: (i) Solitaire + Solid Bond; (ii) ALERT + Bond‐1; (iii) Surefil + Prime & Bond NT; (iv) Filtek P60 + Single Bond and (v) TPH Spectrum + Prime & Bond 2.1. All restorations were made using rubber dam isolation, and the cavity design was restricted to the elimination of carious tissue. Deeper cavities were covered with calcium hydroxide and/or glass–ionomer cement. Each adhesive system and composite resin was placed according to the manufacturer's instructions. One week later, the restorations were finished/polished and evaluated according USPHS modified criteria. Fourteen patients attended the 3‐year recall and 75 restorations were evaluated at that time based on the same evaluation criteria. Friedman repeated measures analysis of variance by rank and Wilcoxon sign‐ranked test for pair‐wise comparison was used for data analysis (α = 0·05). The analysis was performed only for the baseline and for the 3‐year period. Solitaire showed some fractures at marginal ridges in 25% of the cases. Solitaire and ALERT showed some concerns related to colour match (43 and 77%, respectively) and surface texture (86 and 77%, respectively). TPH Spectrum showed a great percentage of colour mismatch after 3 years, around 50%. Surefil and Filtek P60 showed an excellent clinical performance after 3 years, similar to the hybrid resin tested, TPH Spectrum. Solitaire did not fulfil the ADA acceptance criteria for restorative materials and, therefore, is not recommended for use in posterior restorations.