Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 2212
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 19  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 306-310

Two-year clinical evaluation of resin composite in posterior teeth: A randomized controlled study


1 Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Federal University of Espírito Santo, Vitória, ES, Brazil
2 Department of Physics, Federal University of Ceará, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil
3 Department of Operative Dentistry, Endodontics and Dental Materials, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, SP, Brazil
4 Department of Operative Dentistry, Federal University of Ceará, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil

Correspondence Address:
Prof. SÚrgio Lima Santiago
Rua Monsenhor Furtado, s/n - Rodolfo Teofilo, CEP 60430-355, Fortaleza-CE
Brazil
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.186446

Rights and Permissions

Background: Clinical evaluations as fundamental method to prove the efficiency of restorative materials. Aim: This study evaluated the clinical performance of restorative systems during 2 years of clinical service. Materials and Methods: This study assessed the clinical performance of restorative systems (Filtek Z250 and P60), during 2 years of clinical service, using the US Public Health Service system. The randomized and double-blind study comprising thirty volunteers. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months. It was used the following criteria: marginal discoloration (MD), marginal integrity (MI), superficial texture (ST), wear (W), postoperative sensitivity (PS) and recurrent caries (RC). Results: Statistic analysis was performed using Fisher's and McNemar's exact tests and Pearsons's Chi-square in a significance level of 5%. The results at baseline and 24 months for Group I were: MD – 100, 100%; MI – 100, 88.6%; ST – 100, 94.3%; W – 100, 94.3%; PS – 100, 100%; RC – 100, 100%, of alpha scores; Group II: MD – 100, 97.1%; MI – 100, 91.4%; ST – 100, 94.3%; W – 100, 91.4%; PS – 100, 100%; RC – 100, 100%, of alpha scores. It was observed no statistical difference in the evaluated criteria and period. Conclusions: After 24 months of evaluation, both restorative systems exhibited acceptable clinical performance.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1855    
    Printed25    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded209    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal