We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
Quintessence International
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Quintessence Int 37 (2006), No. 5     5. Apr. 2006
Quintessence Int 37 (2006), No. 5  (05.04.2006)

Page 361-368, PubMed:16683683


Performance of 2 packable composites at 12 months
Browning, William D./Myers, Michael L./Chan, Daniel C. N./Downey, Mary C./Pohjola, Randal M./Frazier, Kevin B.
Objective: The purpose of this randomized, double-blind, clinical trial was to compare the marginal seal of 2 packable resin composite materials in moderate to large lesions on molars.
Method and Materials: Fifty participants in need of a moderate to large Class 2 or complex Class 1 molar restoration were randomly distributed into 4 groups, to receive either Alert (Jeneric/Pentron) or SureFil (Dentsply/Caulk) resin composite with or without a surface sealer. Each participant received one restoration. With the exception that study protocol limited increments to no more than 4 mm, teeth were restored according to the manufacturers' instructions, and surface sealer was applied after finishing in the desig-nated groups. Use of Alert includes routine placement of a flowable composite liner. Clinical performance of the restorations was evaluated in 8 categories at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. The 2 materials were compared to determine if a difference in marginal seal existed between groups. The number of restorations exhibiting marginal staining was compared using Fischer's exact test at a significance level of 5%.
Results: Six participants did not present for the 12-month recall. At 12 months, 19 (90.5%) Alert restorations and 15 (68.2%) SureFil restorations did not exhibit marginal staining. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 restorative materials for marginal staining. Overall, 3 restorations were rated as failures.
Conclusion: At 12 months, materials placed with a flowable liner were not associated with a significant reduction in marginal staining.

Keywords: Class 2 posterior restoration, flowable composite liner, marginal seal, marginal staining, packable resin composite, surface sealant