Clinical evaluation of a nanofilled composite in posterior teeth: 12-month results

71Citations
Citations of this article
82Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

This study compared the clinical performance of a nanofilled resin composite for posterior restorations with 2 microhybrid and 1 packable composite after 12 months of clinical service. Forty-two patients with at least 5 Class I or II restorations under occlusion were enrolled in this study. A total of 148 restorations were placed, 25% for each material (Filtek Supreme, Pyramid, Esthet-X or Tetric Ceram). Two calibrated operators placed all restorations, according to the manufacturers' instructions. One week later, the restorations were finished/polished. Two independent examiners evaluated the restorations at baseline and after 12 months according to the USPHS modified criteria. All patients attended the 12-month recall and 148 restorations were evaluated. 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). All materials showed only minor modifications, and no differences were detected between their performance at baseline and after 12 months. After 1 year, the nanofilled resin composite showed similar performance to the other packable and microhybrid resin composites. ©Operative Dentistry, 2006.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Dresch, W., Volpato, S., Gomes, J. C., Ribeiro, N. R., Reis, A., & Loguercio, A. D. (2006). Clinical evaluation of a nanofilled composite in posterior teeth: 12-month results. Operative Dentistry, 31(4), 409–417. https://doi.org/10.2341/05-103

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free