Performance of 2 packable composites at 12 months

William D. Browning, Michael L Myers, Daniel C.N. Chan, Mary C. Downey, Randal M. Pohjola, Kevin B Frazier

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this randomized, double-blind, clinical trial was to compare the marginal seal of 2 packable resin composite materials in moderate to large lesions on molars. Method and Materials: Fifty participants in need of a moderate to large Class 2 or complex Class 1 molar restoration were randomly distributed into 4 groups, to receive either Alert (Jeneric/Pentron) or SureFil (Dentsply/Caulk) resin composite with or without a surface sealer. Each participant received one restoration. With the exception that study protocol limited increments to no more than 4 mm, teeth were restored according to the manufacturers' instructions, and surface sealer was applied after finishing in the designated groups. Use of Alert includes routine placement of a flowable composite liner. Clinical performance of the restorations was evaluated in 8 categories at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. The 2 materials were compared to determine if a difference in marginal seal existed between groups. The number of restorations exhibiting marginal staining was compared using Fischer's exact test at a significance level of 5%. Results: Six participants did not present for the 12-month recall. At 12 months, 19 (90.5%) Alert restorations and 15 (68.2%) SureFil restorations did not exhibit marginal staining. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 restorative materials for marginal staining. Overall, 3 restorations were rated as failures. Conclusion: At 12 months, materials placed with a flowable liner were not associated with a significant reduction in marginal staining.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)361-368
Number of pages8
JournalQuintessence International
Volume37
Issue number5
StatePublished - May 1 2006

Fingerprint

Staining and Labeling
Composite Resins
Tooth
Clinical Trials
CMW cement
flowable hybrid composite

Keywords

  • Class 2 posterior restoration
  • Flowable composite liner
  • Marginal seal
  • Marginal staining
  • Packable resin composite
  • Surface sealant

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Browning, W. D., Myers, M. L., Chan, D. C. N., Downey, M. C., Pohjola, R. M., & Frazier, K. B. (2006). Performance of 2 packable composites at 12 months. Quintessence International, 37(5), 361-368.

Performance of 2 packable composites at 12 months. / Browning, William D.; Myers, Michael L; Chan, Daniel C.N.; Downey, Mary C.; Pohjola, Randal M.; Frazier, Kevin B.

In: Quintessence International, Vol. 37, No. 5, 01.05.2006, p. 361-368.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Browning, WD, Myers, ML, Chan, DCN, Downey, MC, Pohjola, RM & Frazier, KB 2006, 'Performance of 2 packable composites at 12 months', Quintessence International, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 361-368.
Browning WD, Myers ML, Chan DCN, Downey MC, Pohjola RM, Frazier KB. Performance of 2 packable composites at 12 months. Quintessence International. 2006 May 1;37(5):361-368.
Browning, William D. ; Myers, Michael L ; Chan, Daniel C.N. ; Downey, Mary C. ; Pohjola, Randal M. ; Frazier, Kevin B. / Performance of 2 packable composites at 12 months. In: Quintessence International. 2006 ; Vol. 37, No. 5. pp. 361-368.
@article{0c15567dc9984ac9919b61248947dc51,
title = "Performance of 2 packable composites at 12 months",
abstract = "Objective: The purpose of this randomized, double-blind, clinical trial was to compare the marginal seal of 2 packable resin composite materials in moderate to large lesions on molars. Method and Materials: Fifty participants in need of a moderate to large Class 2 or complex Class 1 molar restoration were randomly distributed into 4 groups, to receive either Alert (Jeneric/Pentron) or SureFil (Dentsply/Caulk) resin composite with or without a surface sealer. Each participant received one restoration. With the exception that study protocol limited increments to no more than 4 mm, teeth were restored according to the manufacturers' instructions, and surface sealer was applied after finishing in the designated groups. Use of Alert includes routine placement of a flowable composite liner. Clinical performance of the restorations was evaluated in 8 categories at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. The 2 materials were compared to determine if a difference in marginal seal existed between groups. The number of restorations exhibiting marginal staining was compared using Fischer's exact test at a significance level of 5{\%}. Results: Six participants did not present for the 12-month recall. At 12 months, 19 (90.5{\%}) Alert restorations and 15 (68.2{\%}) SureFil restorations did not exhibit marginal staining. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 restorative materials for marginal staining. Overall, 3 restorations were rated as failures. Conclusion: At 12 months, materials placed with a flowable liner were not associated with a significant reduction in marginal staining.",
keywords = "Class 2 posterior restoration, Flowable composite liner, Marginal seal, Marginal staining, Packable resin composite, Surface sealant",
author = "Browning, {William D.} and Myers, {Michael L} and Chan, {Daniel C.N.} and Downey, {Mary C.} and Pohjola, {Randal M.} and Frazier, {Kevin B}",
year = "2006",
month = "5",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "37",
pages = "361--368",
journal = "Quintessence international (Berlin, Germany : 1985)",
issn = "0033-6572",
publisher = "Quintessence Publishing Company",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Performance of 2 packable composites at 12 months

AU - Browning, William D.

AU - Myers, Michael L

AU - Chan, Daniel C.N.

AU - Downey, Mary C.

AU - Pohjola, Randal M.

AU - Frazier, Kevin B

PY - 2006/5/1

Y1 - 2006/5/1

N2 - Objective: The purpose of this randomized, double-blind, clinical trial was to compare the marginal seal of 2 packable resin composite materials in moderate to large lesions on molars. Method and Materials: Fifty participants in need of a moderate to large Class 2 or complex Class 1 molar restoration were randomly distributed into 4 groups, to receive either Alert (Jeneric/Pentron) or SureFil (Dentsply/Caulk) resin composite with or without a surface sealer. Each participant received one restoration. With the exception that study protocol limited increments to no more than 4 mm, teeth were restored according to the manufacturers' instructions, and surface sealer was applied after finishing in the designated groups. Use of Alert includes routine placement of a flowable composite liner. Clinical performance of the restorations was evaluated in 8 categories at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. The 2 materials were compared to determine if a difference in marginal seal existed between groups. The number of restorations exhibiting marginal staining was compared using Fischer's exact test at a significance level of 5%. Results: Six participants did not present for the 12-month recall. At 12 months, 19 (90.5%) Alert restorations and 15 (68.2%) SureFil restorations did not exhibit marginal staining. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 restorative materials for marginal staining. Overall, 3 restorations were rated as failures. Conclusion: At 12 months, materials placed with a flowable liner were not associated with a significant reduction in marginal staining.

AB - Objective: The purpose of this randomized, double-blind, clinical trial was to compare the marginal seal of 2 packable resin composite materials in moderate to large lesions on molars. Method and Materials: Fifty participants in need of a moderate to large Class 2 or complex Class 1 molar restoration were randomly distributed into 4 groups, to receive either Alert (Jeneric/Pentron) or SureFil (Dentsply/Caulk) resin composite with or without a surface sealer. Each participant received one restoration. With the exception that study protocol limited increments to no more than 4 mm, teeth were restored according to the manufacturers' instructions, and surface sealer was applied after finishing in the designated groups. Use of Alert includes routine placement of a flowable composite liner. Clinical performance of the restorations was evaluated in 8 categories at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. The 2 materials were compared to determine if a difference in marginal seal existed between groups. The number of restorations exhibiting marginal staining was compared using Fischer's exact test at a significance level of 5%. Results: Six participants did not present for the 12-month recall. At 12 months, 19 (90.5%) Alert restorations and 15 (68.2%) SureFil restorations did not exhibit marginal staining. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 restorative materials for marginal staining. Overall, 3 restorations were rated as failures. Conclusion: At 12 months, materials placed with a flowable liner were not associated with a significant reduction in marginal staining.

KW - Class 2 posterior restoration

KW - Flowable composite liner

KW - Marginal seal

KW - Marginal staining

KW - Packable resin composite

KW - Surface sealant

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33645913843&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33645913843&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 16683683

AN - SCOPUS:33645913843

VL - 37

SP - 361

EP - 368

JO - Quintessence international (Berlin, Germany : 1985)

JF - Quintessence international (Berlin, Germany : 1985)

SN - 0033-6572

IS - 5

ER -