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



Forgotten password?


Quintessence Int 39 (2008), No. 9     25. Aug. 2008
Quintessence Int 39 (2008), No. 9  (25.08.2008)

Page 757-765, PubMed:19093049

Clinical performance of the posterior composite QuiXfil after 3, 6, and 18 months in Class 1 and 2 cavities
Manhart, Juergen / Chen, Hong-Yan / Neuerer, Petra / Thiele, Lidka / Jaensch, Birgit / Hickel, Reinhard
Objective: This longitudinal randomized controlled clinical trial evaluated direct composite restorations for clinical acceptability of posterior restoratives in single- or multisurface cavities and provided a preliminary survey of the 3-, 6-, and 18-month results.
Method and Materials: Three clinicians placed 46 QuiXfil (Xeno III; Dentsply DeTrey) and 50 Tetric Ceram (Syntac Classic; Vivadent) composite restorations in stress-bearing Class 1 and 2 cavities in first or second molars (43 adult patients). Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and after 3, 6, and 18 months by 2 other clinicians using modified US Public Health Service criteria. At the final recall period, 45 QuiXfil and 49 Tetric Ceram restorations were assessed.
Results: A total of 97.8% of QuiXfil and 100% of Tetric Ceram posterior composites were assessed to be clinically excellent or acceptable with predominating Alpha scores. At the 18-month recall, 1 QuiXfil restoration had failed because of bulk fracture. No significant differences between either composite could be detected at 18 months for all evaluated clinical criteria (P > .05). Small QuiXfil restorations exhibited significantly less marginal discoloration (P = .003) and better restoration integrity (P = .008) than large restorations. The comparison of restoration performance with time within both groups yielded a significant increase in marginal discoloration for QuiXfil (P = .011) and significant deterioration for anatomic form at the marginal step for Tetric Ceram (P = .011). However, both changes were only effects of scoring shifts from Alpha to Bravo.
Conclusion: Clinical assessment of stress-bearing QuiXfil and Tetric Ceram posterior composite restorations exhibited for both materials good clinical results with predominating Alpha scores.

Keywords: clinical study, composite, longevity, molars, USPHS