Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer, nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorative systems in posterior teeth

被引:0
作者
Mahmoud, Salah Hasab [1 ]
El-Embaby, Abeer E. [1 ]
AbdAllah, Asmaa Mohamed [1 ]
Hamama, Hamdi Hosni [1 ]
机构
[1] Mansoura Univ, Fac Dent, Dept Conservat Dent, Mansoura, Egypt
关键词
ormocer; nanofill composite; nanohybrid composite; clinical evaluation;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Purpose: To evaluate and compare the 2-year clinical performance of an ormocer, a nanohybrid, and a nanofill resin composite with that of a microhybrid composite in restorations of small occlusal cavities made in posterior teeth. Materials and Methods: Thirty-five patients, each with 4 occlusal restorations under occlusion, were enrolled in this study. A total of 140 restorations was placed, 25% for each material: an ormocer-based composite, Admira; a nanohybrid resin composite, Tetric EvoCeram; a nanofill resin composite, Filtelk Supreme; and a microhybrid resin composite, Tetric Ceram. Two operators placed all restorations according to the manufacturers' instructions. One week after placement, the restorations were finished/polished and patients were advised to return for follow-up at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. All patients attended the 2-year visit where the clinical performance of all restorations was evaluated. Two independent examiners made all evaluations accordingto the USPHS modified Ryge criteria immediately after placement of restorations and at subsequent recall visits. The changes in the USPHS parameters during the 2-year period were analyzed with the Friedman test. Comparison of the baseline scores with those at the recall visits was made using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: All materials showed only minorchanges, and no differences were detected between their performance at baseline and after 2 years. Only one ormocer and one microhybrid composite restoration had failed after 2 years. No failure was detected in nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorations. Regarding the clinical performance, there were no statistically significant differences among the materials used (p > 0.05). Conclusion: After 2 years, the ormocer, nanohybrid, and nanofill composites showed acceptable clinical performance similar to that of the microhybrid resin composite.
引用
收藏
页码:315 / 322
页数:8
相关论文
共 47 条
[1]   COMPARISON OF THE MARGINAL INTEGRITY OF INVIVO AND INVITRO CLASS-II COMPOSITE RESTORATIONS [J].
ABDALLA, AI ;
DAVIDSON, CL .
JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 1993, 21 (03) :158-162
[2]  
*AM DENT ASS, 1996, ADA ACC PROGR GUID R, P1
[3]   Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid composite resin and ormocer-based tooth-colored restorative materials after several finishing and polishing procedures [J].
Baseren, M .
JOURNAL OF BIOMATERIALS APPLICATIONS, 2004, 19 (02) :121-134
[4]   Characterization of nanofilled compared to universal and microfilled composites [J].
Beun, Sebastien ;
Glorieux, Therese ;
Devaux, Jacques ;
Vreven, Jose ;
Leloup, Gaetane .
DENTAL MATERIALS, 2007, 23 (01) :51-59
[5]  
BOTTENBERG P, 2006, J DENT, V7, P1002
[6]  
Busato ALS, 2001, AM J DENT, V14, P304
[7]   Amalgam vs. composite resin: 1998 [J].
Christensen, GJ .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION, 1998, 129 (12) :1757-1759
[8]  
de Souza FB, 2005, QUINTESSENCE INT, V36, P41
[9]   Influence of enzymes and plaque acids on in vitro wear of dental composites [J].
deGee, AJ ;
Wendt, SL ;
Werner, A ;
Davidson, CL .
BIOMATERIALS, 1996, 17 (13) :1327-1332
[10]  
DIJKEN JV, 2005, TETRIC EVOCERAM 2 YE