Home Subscription Services
 
   

 
Quintessence International
QI Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Accepted Manuscripts
Submit
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitter
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: QI
Quintessence International

Edited by Eli Eliav

ISSN 0033-6572 (print) • ISSN 1936-7163 (online)

Publication:
May 2006
Volume 37 , Issue 5

Back
Share Abstract:

Performance of 2 packable composites at 12 months

William D. Browning, DDS, MS / Michael L. Myers, DDS / Daniel C. N. Chan, DDS, MS / Mary C. Downey, RDH, MS / Randal M. Pohjola, DDS / Kevin B. Frazier, DMD

Pages: 361-368
PMID: 16683683

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 manufacturersí 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 Fischerís 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. (Quintessence Int 2006;37:361-368)

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

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.
  © 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog