TY - JOUR
T1 - Two-centre evaluation of a resin composite/ self-etching restorative system: three-year findings
AU - Wilson, NH
AU - Gordan, VV
AU - Brunton, PA
AU - Wilson, MA
AU - Crisp, Russell
AU - Mj r, IA
PY - 2006/2/1
Y1 - 2006/2/1
N2 - PURPOSE: This two-centre study evaluated the clinical performance of Class I and Class II restorations of the giomer material Beautifil, placed using Fluorobond, a self-etching adhesive system, to determine the suitability of the test system as an alternative for the restoration of posterior teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 108 restorations, comprising 72 Class II and 36 Class I restorations, was placed predominantly in molars (82%). Evaulations using modified USPHS/Ryge criteria were conducted at baseline and thereafter at 6 months and 1, 2, and 3 years. Die stone replicas of the restored teeth were examined retrospectively. RESULTS: A total of 5 restorations was found to fail during the study-- 3 in the first year and 2 during the third year of the study. Occlusal marginal adaptation was less than ideal at baseline in 11% of cases, primarily as a consequence of overcontouring, as observed in the die stone replicas. The combined percentage Alpha ratings at 3 years were: colour match, 98%; marginal adaptation (occlusal), 78%; marginal adaptation (proximal), 97%; anatomic form (occlusal), 99%; anatomic form (proximal), 95%; surface roughness (occlusal), 100%; surface roughness (proximal), 100%; marginal staining (occlusal), 90%; marginal staining (proximal) 81%; interfacial staining (occlusal), 99%; interfacial staining (proximal), 100%; contacts (occlusal), 95%; contacts (proximal), 93%; sensitivity, 100%; secondary caries, 100%; lustre of restoration, 100%. CONCLUSION: It is concluded that the 3-year performance of Fluorobond-bonded Beautifil for Class I and II restorations demonstrated some marginal changes, but most of the direct evaluation ratings were > 90% Alpha, with the performance observed being similar in the two centres.
AB - PURPOSE: This two-centre study evaluated the clinical performance of Class I and Class II restorations of the giomer material Beautifil, placed using Fluorobond, a self-etching adhesive system, to determine the suitability of the test system as an alternative for the restoration of posterior teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 108 restorations, comprising 72 Class II and 36 Class I restorations, was placed predominantly in molars (82%). Evaulations using modified USPHS/Ryge criteria were conducted at baseline and thereafter at 6 months and 1, 2, and 3 years. Die stone replicas of the restored teeth were examined retrospectively. RESULTS: A total of 5 restorations was found to fail during the study-- 3 in the first year and 2 during the third year of the study. Occlusal marginal adaptation was less than ideal at baseline in 11% of cases, primarily as a consequence of overcontouring, as observed in the die stone replicas. The combined percentage Alpha ratings at 3 years were: colour match, 98%; marginal adaptation (occlusal), 78%; marginal adaptation (proximal), 97%; anatomic form (occlusal), 99%; anatomic form (proximal), 95%; surface roughness (occlusal), 100%; surface roughness (proximal), 100%; marginal staining (occlusal), 90%; marginal staining (proximal) 81%; interfacial staining (occlusal), 99%; interfacial staining (proximal), 100%; contacts (occlusal), 95%; contacts (proximal), 93%; sensitivity, 100%; secondary caries, 100%; lustre of restoration, 100%. CONCLUSION: It is concluded that the 3-year performance of Fluorobond-bonded Beautifil for Class I and II restorations demonstrated some marginal changes, but most of the direct evaluation ratings were > 90% Alpha, with the performance observed being similar in the two centres.
M3 - Article
C2 - 16536345
SN - 1461-5185
VL - 8
SP - 47
EP - 51
JO - The journal of adhesive dentistry
JF - The journal of adhesive dentistry
IS - 1
ER -