Two-year evaluation of restorations of a packable composite placed in UK general dental practices

Frederick Burke, Russell Crisp, M Balkenhol, TJ Bell, JJ Lamb, K McDermott, C Siddons, B Weller

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

31 Citations (Scopus)


Objective The aim of this study was to assess the clinical performance at two years of 100 Solitaire 2 restorations placed in five United Kingdom dental practices by members of a practice-based research group. Method and materials Restorations were assessed after two years by a trained evaluator and the dental practitioner who had placed the material, for anatomic form, marginal adaptation, surface roughness, gingival condition and the presence or absence of secondary caries. In addition, the patients completed a questionnaire requesting details of the comfort and performance of the Solitaire 2 restoration(s). Results A total of 88 (58 Class II and 30 Class I) restorations of Solitaire 2 placed in 49 patients (mean age 43 years) were assessed. Twelve restorations could not be evaluated because of patient unavailability for the dates of the examinations. Two Class II restorations (2%) had failed by the time of the two-year evaluation and the remaining 86 restorations were found to be intact with no secondary caries. A high percentage of optimal scores were recorded for anatomic form and surface roughness. The colour match of two restorations (2%) was recorded as an obvious mismatch, but otherwise no unacceptable scores were recorded. Conclusions After two years of clinical service a high proportion (96%) of the Solitaire 2 restorations that were available for re-examination, placed in general dental practice settings, were found to be performing satisfactorily.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)293-298
Number of pages6
JournalBritish Dental Journal
Publication statusPublished - 12 Mar 2005


Dive into the research topics of 'Two-year evaluation of restorations of a packable composite placed in UK general dental practices'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this