Published in:
01-09-2006 | Original Article
Clinical evaluation of two packable posterior composites: 2-year follow-up
Authors:
T. C. Fagundes, T. J. E. Barata, E. Bresciani, D. F. G. Cefaly, M. F. F. Jorge, M. F. L. Navarro
Published in:
Clinical Oral Investigations
|
Issue 3/2006
Login to get access
Abstract
The clinical performance of two packable posterior composites, Alert (A)—Jeneric/Pentron and SureFil™ (S)—Dentsply, was evaluated in 33 patients. Each patient received one A and one S restoration, resulting in a total of 66 restorations. The restorations were placed by one operator according to the manufacturer’s specifications and were finished and polished after 1 week. Photographs were taken at baseline and after 2 years. Two independent evaluators conducted the clinical evaluation by using modified United States Public Health Service criteria. After 2 years, 60 restorations (30 A and 30 S), 27 class I (16 A and 11 S) and 33 class II (14 A and 19 S) were evaluated in 30 patients. Criterion A for recurrent caries, vitality, and retention was applicable to all 60 restorations. Criterion B was distributed among 40 restorations as follows: surface texture (15 A; 2 S), color (5 A; 6 S), postoperative sensitivity (1 S), marginal discoloration (8 A), marginal adaptation (3 A), and wear resistance (2 A). Data were analyzed using the Exact Fisher and McNemar tests. After 2 years, S showed a significantly better performance than A with respect to surface texture and marginal discoloration. The clinical performance of both materials was considered acceptable over the 2-year period. Further evaluations are necessary for a more in-depth analysis.