Nanohybrid composite vs. fine hybrid composite in extended Class II cavities: clinical and microscopic results after 2 years

Norbert Krämer, Christian Reinelt, Franklin Garcia-Godoy, Michael Taschner, Anselm Petschelt, Roland Frankenberger

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical behavior of two different resin composites in Class II cavities over a period of 2 years in a controlled prospective split-mouth study. Methods: 30 subjects received 68 direct resin composite restorations (Grandio bonded with Solobond M: n= 36, Tetric Ceram bonded with Syntac: n= 32) by one dentist in a private practice. All restorations were replacement restorations, 24 cavities (35%) revealed no enamel at the bottom of the proximal box, in 33 cavities (48%) the proximal enamel width was < 0.5 mm. The restorations were examined according to modified USPHS criteria at baseline, and after 0.5, 1, and 2 years. At each recall, impressions were taken to prepare replicas. Replicas of 44 selected subjects were assessed for marginal quality under a stereo light microscope (SLM) at xl30, and 22 replicas were assessed under a SEM at x200. Results: Both recall rate and survival rate were 100% after 2 years of clinical service. No significant difference was found between the restorative materials (P> 0.05; Mann-Whitney U-test). A significant deterioration was found over time for marginal integrity, tooth integrity, restoration integrity and proximal contact (P< 0.05; Friedman test). SLM and SEM analysis of restoration margins only revealed differences in the amount of detectable perfect margins, in favor of Tetric Ceram (P< 0.05). Both materials performed satisfactorily over the 2-year observation period.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)228-234
Number of pages7
JournalAmerican Journal of Dentistry
Volume22
Issue number4
StatePublished - Aug 1 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Composite Resins
Dental Enamel
Private Practice
Nonparametric Statistics
Dentists
Mouth
Tooth
Observation
Tetric ceram
Grandio
Solobond M

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Nanohybrid composite vs. fine hybrid composite in extended Class II cavities : clinical and microscopic results after 2 years. / Krämer, Norbert; Reinelt, Christian; Garcia-Godoy, Franklin; Taschner, Michael; Petschelt, Anselm; Frankenberger, Roland.

In: American Journal of Dentistry, Vol. 22, No. 4, 01.08.2009, p. 228-234.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Krämer, Norbert ; Reinelt, Christian ; Garcia-Godoy, Franklin ; Taschner, Michael ; Petschelt, Anselm ; Frankenberger, Roland. / Nanohybrid composite vs. fine hybrid composite in extended Class II cavities : clinical and microscopic results after 2 years. In: American Journal of Dentistry. 2009 ; Vol. 22, No. 4. pp. 228-234.
@article{091d5760275f49158fb943cd40fb5ad5,
title = "Nanohybrid composite vs. fine hybrid composite in extended Class II cavities: clinical and microscopic results after 2 years",
abstract = "Purpose: To evaluate the clinical behavior of two different resin composites in Class II cavities over a period of 2 years in a controlled prospective split-mouth study. Methods: 30 subjects received 68 direct resin composite restorations (Grandio bonded with Solobond M: n= 36, Tetric Ceram bonded with Syntac: n= 32) by one dentist in a private practice. All restorations were replacement restorations, 24 cavities (35{\%}) revealed no enamel at the bottom of the proximal box, in 33 cavities (48{\%}) the proximal enamel width was < 0.5 mm. The restorations were examined according to modified USPHS criteria at baseline, and after 0.5, 1, and 2 years. At each recall, impressions were taken to prepare replicas. Replicas of 44 selected subjects were assessed for marginal quality under a stereo light microscope (SLM) at xl30, and 22 replicas were assessed under a SEM at x200. Results: Both recall rate and survival rate were 100{\%} after 2 years of clinical service. No significant difference was found between the restorative materials (P> 0.05; Mann-Whitney U-test). A significant deterioration was found over time for marginal integrity, tooth integrity, restoration integrity and proximal contact (P< 0.05; Friedman test). SLM and SEM analysis of restoration margins only revealed differences in the amount of detectable perfect margins, in favor of Tetric Ceram (P< 0.05). Both materials performed satisfactorily over the 2-year observation period.",
author = "Norbert Kr{\"a}mer and Christian Reinelt and Franklin Garcia-Godoy and Michael Taschner and Anselm Petschelt and Roland Frankenberger",
year = "2009",
month = "8",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "228--234",
journal = "American Journal of Dentistry",
issn = "0894-8275",
publisher = "Mosher and Linder, Inc",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Nanohybrid composite vs. fine hybrid composite in extended Class II cavities

T2 - clinical and microscopic results after 2 years

AU - Krämer, Norbert

AU - Reinelt, Christian

AU - Garcia-Godoy, Franklin

AU - Taschner, Michael

AU - Petschelt, Anselm

AU - Frankenberger, Roland

PY - 2009/8/1

Y1 - 2009/8/1

N2 - Purpose: To evaluate the clinical behavior of two different resin composites in Class II cavities over a period of 2 years in a controlled prospective split-mouth study. Methods: 30 subjects received 68 direct resin composite restorations (Grandio bonded with Solobond M: n= 36, Tetric Ceram bonded with Syntac: n= 32) by one dentist in a private practice. All restorations were replacement restorations, 24 cavities (35%) revealed no enamel at the bottom of the proximal box, in 33 cavities (48%) the proximal enamel width was < 0.5 mm. The restorations were examined according to modified USPHS criteria at baseline, and after 0.5, 1, and 2 years. At each recall, impressions were taken to prepare replicas. Replicas of 44 selected subjects were assessed for marginal quality under a stereo light microscope (SLM) at xl30, and 22 replicas were assessed under a SEM at x200. Results: Both recall rate and survival rate were 100% after 2 years of clinical service. No significant difference was found between the restorative materials (P> 0.05; Mann-Whitney U-test). A significant deterioration was found over time for marginal integrity, tooth integrity, restoration integrity and proximal contact (P< 0.05; Friedman test). SLM and SEM analysis of restoration margins only revealed differences in the amount of detectable perfect margins, in favor of Tetric Ceram (P< 0.05). Both materials performed satisfactorily over the 2-year observation period.

AB - Purpose: To evaluate the clinical behavior of two different resin composites in Class II cavities over a period of 2 years in a controlled prospective split-mouth study. Methods: 30 subjects received 68 direct resin composite restorations (Grandio bonded with Solobond M: n= 36, Tetric Ceram bonded with Syntac: n= 32) by one dentist in a private practice. All restorations were replacement restorations, 24 cavities (35%) revealed no enamel at the bottom of the proximal box, in 33 cavities (48%) the proximal enamel width was < 0.5 mm. The restorations were examined according to modified USPHS criteria at baseline, and after 0.5, 1, and 2 years. At each recall, impressions were taken to prepare replicas. Replicas of 44 selected subjects were assessed for marginal quality under a stereo light microscope (SLM) at xl30, and 22 replicas were assessed under a SEM at x200. Results: Both recall rate and survival rate were 100% after 2 years of clinical service. No significant difference was found between the restorative materials (P> 0.05; Mann-Whitney U-test). A significant deterioration was found over time for marginal integrity, tooth integrity, restoration integrity and proximal contact (P< 0.05; Friedman test). SLM and SEM analysis of restoration margins only revealed differences in the amount of detectable perfect margins, in favor of Tetric Ceram (P< 0.05). Both materials performed satisfactorily over the 2-year observation period.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70449365463&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70449365463&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 19824560

AN - SCOPUS:70449365463

VL - 22

SP - 228

EP - 234

JO - American Journal of Dentistry

JF - American Journal of Dentistry

SN - 0894-8275

IS - 4

ER -