五种充填用流动性复合树脂的耐磨性能研究

目的比较5种充填用流动性复合树脂的耐磨性能,为临床选择适用于[牙合]力承担区直接充填治疗的流动性复合树脂提供参考。方法以可压实复合树脂(Majesty)为对照组,选用5种充填用流动性复合树脂(A组:Filtex 350 XT Flow;B组:Beautifil Flowable Plus;C组:Clearfil Majesty LV2;D组:Unifil LoFlo Plus;E组:Sonic Fill组)为研究对象,每组材料制备6个半球形试件。在微摩擦磨损实验机下,树脂试件垂直加载20 N,与牛牙釉质往复对磨1万次后测量球头磨斑直径并在扫描电镜下观察磨斑微观形貌。采用单因素方差分析比较各组磨斑直径差异。结果对照组、A、B组磨斑直径[分别为(1033±43)、(1068±48)、(1237±86)μm]差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),C、D、E组磨斑直径[分别为(1550±150)、(1384±222)、(1525±81)μm]均显著大于对照组和A组(P<0.05)。扫描电镜显示,对照组、A、B组填料粒度范围较大,磨耗面可见填料的碎裂和局部缺损;C、D、E组填料颗粒较小,并可见多处整块填料脱落的痕迹。结论填料粒度范围大的流动性复合树脂的耐磨性能与可压实复合树脂相当,有望用于[牙合]力承担区直接充填治疗。     

五种充填用流动性复合树脂的耐磨性能研究

目的比较5种充填用流动性复合树脂的耐磨性能,为临床选择适用于力承担区直接充填治疗的流动性复合树脂提供参考。方法以可压实复合树脂(Majesty)为对照组,选用5种充填用流动性复合树脂(A组:Filtex 350 XT Flow;B组:Beautifil Flowable Plus;C组:Clearfil Majesty LV2;D组:Unifil LoFlo Plus;E组:Sonic Fill组)为研究对象,每组材料制备6个半球形试件。在微摩擦磨损实验机下,树脂试件垂直加载20 N,与牛牙釉质往复对磨1万次后测量球头磨斑直径并在扫描电镜下观察磨斑微观形貌。采用单因素方差分析比较各组磨斑直径差异。结果对照组、A、B组磨斑直径[分别为(1 033±43)、(1 068±48)、(1 237±86) μm]差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),C、D、E组磨斑直径[分别为(1 550±150)、(1 384±222)、(1 525±81) μm ]均显著大于对照组和A组(P<0.05)。扫描电镜显示,对照组、A、B组填料粒度范围较大,磨耗面可见填料的碎裂和局部缺损;C、D、E组填料...     

充填厚度对光固化大块复合树脂充填效果的影响

目的 研究充填厚度对大块复合树脂充填效果的影响.方法 2种大块充填树脂Filtek Bulk Fill Posteri-or(FBF)和Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill(TBF)为实验组,2种传统光固化复合树脂Filtek Z100(Z100)和Spec-trum TPH(ST)为对照,测试不同固化厚度...     

3种大块充填树脂的耐磨耗性能及挠曲强度的比较研究

目的:比较3种大块充填树脂的耐磨耗性能及挠曲强度.方法:选取SDR、SonicFill、Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill及传统纳米树脂Herculite Precis,分别制作成直径为10 mm、高度为2 mm的圆柱体耐磨耗实验试件和2 mm×2 mm×25 mm长方体挠曲强度实验试件.将磨耗试件固定在往复滑动球-片式磨耗试验机上,以人工唾液作为磨耗介质,加载力为50 N,磨耗1万次后计算体积磨损值.应用万能实验机以1 mm/min的加载速度,测量并计算试件挠曲强度值.采用SPSS13.0软件包对4种复合树脂体积磨损量及挠曲强度值的差异进行单因素方差分析.结果:4种树脂的体积磨损量从大到小依次为SDR(1.2433±0.11) mm3、SonicFill (0.6331±0.09) mm3、Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fi11(0.3558±0.05) mm3、Herculite Precis (0.3097±0.04) mm3,挠曲强度值从大到小依次为SonicFill(136.2184±14.61) MPa、HerculitePrecis(124.1468±18.25) MPa、Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill(119.2082±16.36) MPa、SDR(103.6246±7.03) MPao Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill与对照树脂Herculite Precis的体积磨损量和挠曲强度值均无显著差异(P＞0.05).结论:综合材料的耐磨耗性能和挠曲强度,大块充填树脂Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill可能更适合作为后牙直接充填材料.     

不同固化充填方法对Z350纳米树脂微渗漏和压缩强度的影响

目的 对比研究整体固化和分层固化充填方法 对光固化复合树脂微渗漏和压缩强度的影响。方法 选取下颌恒磨牙36颗,面中央制备标准Ⅰ类洞,随机分为3组。A组:整体固化充填;B组:水平分层固化充填;C组:斜向分层固化充填组。每组均用SingleBond2粘结,Z350纳米树脂充填,冷热循环500次,2%亚甲基蓝染色,沿牙体长轴颊舌向切片,体视显微镜下观察染料渗透情况。制备Z350整体固化及分层固化试样,万能材料试验机上测定材料的抗压缩强度。结果 微渗漏方面,A组最大,C组最小,三组之间比较皆有显著性差异(P<0.01)。抗压缩强度方面,A组最小,B组最大,A组与B组、C组比较有显著性差异(P<0.05),B、C组间无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论 斜向分层充填技术既能减少微渗漏,又能保证树脂的抗压缩强度,是Ⅰ类洞树脂充填的首选方案。     

影响树脂充填治疗效果的因素分析

目的 调查天然牙经复合树脂充填治疗后的3年成功率,并分析影响成功的相关因素,为临床上提高复合树脂充填治疗效果提供参考依据。方法 选择2018年1月至2019年6月于山西省古交西山医院口腔科接受复合树脂充填治疗的患者400名,男性200名,女性200名;年龄50～71岁,平均60.4±6.4岁;共660颗牙齿进入调查,采用问卷调查、调阅病历、口腔检查和X线辅助检查的方法对其性别、口腔卫生状况、树脂类型、粘结剂类型、充填方式等进行调查,并将数据进行统计分析。结果 复合树脂充填成功率为90%,单因素分析显示嚼硬物情况、过冷过热饮食充填洞型、树脂基质类型、树脂填料类型、粘接剂类型、隔湿方法、充填器械和充填方式组间比较差异具有统计学意义(P <0.05)。多因素分析显示喜嚼硬物、过冷过热饮食、树脂基质为甲基丙烯酸酯类、树脂填料为混合填料、整层充填、充填洞型为Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅴ类洞为复合树脂充填治疗失败的独立危险因素(P <0.05)。结论 当前复合树脂充填治疗后保持长期稳定依然面临挑战,保持良好饮食习惯及咀嚼习惯,选择性能优良的树脂材料并采用正确的充填方式可提高成功率。     

不同光固化模式对大体积充填树脂固化效率影响的研究

目的比较不同光固化模式对Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill以及3M Filtek Bulk Fill flowable大体积充填树脂固化效率的影响。方法制作树脂样本60个,分为A~D四组,A、B两组采用Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill树脂制作,分别使用标准模式与软启动模式进行固化,C、D两组采用3M Filtek Bulk Fill flowable树脂制作,固化模式同上,固化结束后每组采用三种不同方法(ISO4049国际标准法、显微硬度法、交联程度法)检测大体积充填树脂的固化效率,结果采用SPSS 22.0软件进行统计分析。结果在标准光照模式下,大体积充填树脂的固化效率比软启动光照模式高,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),不同的光照模式对树脂的显微硬度无显著影响,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论大体积充填树脂在标准模式的下固化效率高,光固化模式的改变对树脂的显微硬度无影响。     

流动性充填材料用于预防性树脂充填的实验研究

目的　以传统的复合树脂+窝沟封闭剂的方法为对照组,用体外实验的方法评价流动树脂、流动复合体在预防性树脂充填(preventiveresinrestoration ,PRR)治疗中的情况。方法　患小面积龋被拔除第三恒磨牙9颗,分别用流动树脂(A组)、流动复合体(B组)和传统的复合树脂材料+窝沟封闭剂(C组)的方法进行PRR治疗。5 0 %AgNO3 浸染法检查微渗漏;用SEM观察树脂与牙齿的结合情况。结果　①渗透实验表明各实验组和对照组中均存在一定程度的微渗漏;在微渗漏率方面,A组低于对照的C组(P <0 .0 5 ) ,在树脂渗透率方面A组低于B组和C组(P <0 .0 5 )。②SEM上显示A与B组相似,多数标本树脂与牙齿接触的界面上有结合良好的树脂突样结构,但树脂在和窝沟底部与牙体组织结合较差,特别在极细窝沟处;C组中结合良好的界面所占比例较少,复合树脂勉强压入窝洞后充填不实,在沟底部常见宽大裂纹。结论　在流动复合体和流动树脂在PRR治疗时更适用于沿窝沟走向侵润的窄长形态的窝沟内龋,而传统PRR法更适用于单个龋损直径在1 .5～2mm左右的圆形或卵圆形的小面积龋,流动性充填材料在PRR治疗中可作为传统法的一种补充,最大限度地保留健康牙体组织。     

漂白处理对树脂充填体边缘微渗漏的影响

目的:评价35%过氧化氢凝胶对树脂充填体边缘微渗漏的影响。方法:选择离体上颌第三磨牙40颗,在颊面制备Ⅴ类洞复合树脂分层充填,光照固化抛光后按处理时间随机分为4组(n=10):A(对照组)、B(10 min)、C(20 min)、D(30min)。将凝胶涂布于充填体表面进行漂白处理后冷热循环500次,再用2%亚甲蓝溶液染色24 h,沿颊舌纵向剖开,体式显微镜观察并记录染料渗入深度。用Kruskal-Wallis法进行数据分析;Mann-Whitney法组间两两比较,检验水准均为α=0.05。结果:不同漂白处理时间对树脂充填体边缘微渗漏的影响有统计学意义(P<0.05);组间比较显示A与C、A与D、B与D、C与D间差异有统计学意义。结论:35%过氧化氢凝胶漂白处理使复合树脂充填体的边缘微渗漏程度增加。     

三种树脂粘接剂对可切削复合树脂与牙本质粘接强度的比较研究

目的 通过比较3种树脂粘接剂对聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯-纳米二氧化硅-二氧化锆(polymethylmecrylate/nano SiO2-ZrO2,PNSZ)可切削复合树脂与牙本质的粘接强度的差异,寻找适合PNSZ可切削复合树脂的树脂粘接剂,为临床应用提供参考.方法 使用树脂粘接剂A(RelyX ARC)、B(Panavia-F)和c(Variolink II)粘接PNSZ可切削复合树脂与牙本质,测试剪切粘接强度和微拉伸粘接强度(各分为A、B、C 3组,每组10个试件),并采用50倍立体显微镜观察断裂模式.结果 剪切测试中A、B、C组试件的粘接强度分别为(14.07±4.67)、(13.17±4.63)、(12.10±2.18)MPa,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);微拉伸测试中A、B、C组试件的粘接强度分别为(11.49±4.90)、(9.66±4.15)、(10.11±4.20)MPa,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).立体显微镜观察显示,3种粘接剂的断裂模式均以牙本质-粘接剂界面的断裂为主.结论 3种树脂粘接剂对PNSZ可切削复合树脂与牙本质的粘接效果相近.PNSZ可切削复合树脂一粘接剂界面的粘接优于牙本质-粘接剂界面.     

Porosities and voids in Class I restorations placed by six operators using a packable or syringable composite.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to investigate the influence of two resin composites with different handling properties and application techniques on the homogeneity of a restoration placed in small and large cavities. Furthermore, the operator-effect on the restorative procedure was studied. METHODS: Standardized Class I cavities of two sizes were prepared in artificial lower first molars. The cavities were restored with two resin composites (Surefil and Ecusit) using either a packing or an injection technique. Six operators were involved in the study, five general practitioners and one final-year dental student. Each operator restored 40 preparations, ten in each group. After finishing, the restorations were sectioned and inspected for the presence of voids and porosities. RESULTS: 240 restorations were placed and 480 sections were available for evaluation. Only 143 sections were totally free of porosities. For both the small and large preparation design the Ecusit composite used with the injection technique resulted in significantly less porosities in the restoration. Differences between operators were evident, but none of the operators achieved significantly better results with the packing technique than with the injection technique. SIGNIFICANCE: The use of a syringable resin composite results in a better adaptation of the restoration compared to a packable resin composite.     

Effects of flowable composite lining and operator experience on microleakage and internal voids in class II composite restorations

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: When inexperienced clinicians perform class II composite restorations, improper placement techniques can lead to problems, including marginal adaptation and void formation. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the influence of flowable composite linings on marginal microleakage and internal voids in class II composite restorations performed by practitioners with different levels of experience. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty extracted molars were prepared with mesial and distal class II cavity preparations and divided into 4 groups. Each group was restored separately with the following materials: Prodigy/Revolution lining (group I), Prodigy (group II), Tetric Ceram/Tetric Flow lining (group III), and Tetric Ceram (group IV). Each group was equally divided and restored by 2 practitioners, one experienced and another untrained in composite restorations. After restoration, all teeth were stored for 24 hours, thermocycled (at 5 degrees C to 60 degrees C) 1500 times, and soaked in 2% basic Fuchsin dye for 24 hours. After soaking, the teeth were sectioned, and gingival marginal microleakage and internal voids (at the gingival wall interface and in the cervical and the occlusal parts) were recorded. Data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: There was no significant reduction in microleakage for either practitioner. There were fewer interface voids within pairs with or without flowable composite linings made by the experienced practitioner (P<.05). CONCLUSION: When flowable composite lining was placed at the gingival floor of a class II composite restoration by an experienced practitioner, voids in the restored interface were reduced. Gingival marginal sealing was not improved by the same technique.     

The effect of flowable resin composite on microleakage and internal voids in class II composite restorations

This in vitro study evaluated the influence of two flowable resin composites on marginal microleakage and internal voids in Class II composite restorations with the margins below the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). Class II cavities randomly divided into four groups: Group I-Filtek with Filtek Flow lining; Group II-Filtek; Group III-Tetric Ceram with Tetric Flow lining; Group IV-Tetric Ceram. After thermocycling tests (5-60 x 1500) and dye soaking, the teeth were sectioned in a mesiodistal direction along their longitudinal axis. Gingival-marginal microleakage and internal voids in three separate portions of the restoration (interface, cervical and occlusal voids) were observed with a microscope. Statistical analyses indicated that the use of flowable resin composites (Groups I and III) provided a reduction in marginal microleakage and a reduction in some parts of the internal voids or total voids (p<0.05). The condensable material (Filtek) in combination with the flowable liner showed fewer voids (interface, occlusal, total) than the hybrid resin (Tetric) (p<0.05). There was a correlation between the number of internal voids or total voids and the marginal microleakage (p<0.05). It was concluded that a composite lining in a Class II resin composite with margins below the cementoenamel junction may reduce marginal microleakage and voids in the interface and the total number of voids in the restoration.     

Effect of cyclic loading on the bond strength of class II restorations with different composite materials

This study evaluated the effect of cyclic loading on the bond strength of Class II restorations using different composite materials. Class II preparations with gingival margins located in dentin were performed on the mesial surface of 80 bovine incisors. The teeth were randomly allocated to eight groups (n=10) according to resin composite (Filtek Z250, Filtek Supreme, Tetric Ceram HB and Esthet-X) and use of cyclic loading. The restorations were bonded with the Single Bond adhesive system. Simulated aging groups were cyclic loaded for 200,000 cycles with 80N load (2Hz). The specimens were vertically sectioned (two slabs per restoration) and further trimmed into an hour-glass shape at the adhesive interface to obtain a final bonded area 1 mm2. Samples were placed in an apparatus and tested under tension using a universal testing machine. The data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey test with a 95% confidence level. Aged groups presented significantly lower means when compared to the groups that were not aged (p=0.03). However, significant differences among composite materials were not observed (p=0.17). Regardless of the restorative composite material used, it could be concluded that the bond strength of Class II restorations at the gingival wall was affected by simulated cyclic loading.     

Three-year randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance, quantitative and qualitative wear patterns of hybrid composite restorations

The aim of the study was to compare the clinical performance, quantitative and qualitative wear patterns of conventional hybrid (Tetric Ceram), micro-filled hybrid (Gradia Direct Posterior) and nano-hybrid (Tetric EvoCeram, TEC) posterior composite restorations in a 3-year randomised clinical trial. Sixteen Tetric Ceram, 17 TEC and 16 Gradia Direct Posterior restorations were placed in human molars and evaluated at baseline, 6, 12, 24 and 36 months of clinical service according to US Public Health Service criteria. The gypsum replicas at each recall were used for 3D laser scanning to quantify wear, and the epoxy resin replicas were observed under scanning electron microscope to study the qualitative wear patterns. After 3 years of clinical service, the three hybrid restorative materials performed clinically well in posterior cavities. Within the observation period, the nano-hybrid and micro-hybrid restorations evolved better in polishability with improved surface gloss retention than the conventional hybrid counterpart. The three hybrid composites showed enamel-like vertical wear and cavity-size dependant volume loss magnitude. Qualitatively, while the micro-filled and nano-hybrid composite restorations exhibited signs of fatigue similar to the conventional hybrid composite restorations at heavy occlusal contact area, their light occlusal contact areas showed less surface pitting after 3 years of clinical service.     

One-year evaluation of two hybrid composites placed in a randomized-controlled clinical trial

Objective

The aim of this prospective randomized-controlled clinical trial is to assess the long-term performance of two direct composite resins in posterior teeth. This study provides a survey of the one-year results.

Materials and methods

A total of 1805 restorations were placed by students in stress-bearing Class I/II cavities (including cuspal-coverage) in molars and premolars in 456 patients. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and after one year using modified USPHS criteria. The restorations in each patient were performed either with Ceram X/Prime&Bond NT or Tetric Ceram/Optibond Solo Plus.

Results

After one year 528 fillings with Ceram X and 580 with Tetric Ceram were available for evaluation of substance loss, contact point, color match, marginal staining, marginal adaptation, secondary caries and radiographic examination (if necessary). This represents a recall rate of 61.18% (279 patients). The failure rate per material was 5.3% in the Ceram X group and 6.1% in the Tetric Ceram group. Most of the failures were associated with marginal adaptation/integrity of the filling. A significant influence on the occurrence of a failure was observed for the number of treated teeth per patient, the age of the patient, the mesio-distal extension of the restoration and the tooth position. Gender, material, a previous root canal treatment, the bucco-lingual extension of the filling or cuspal-coverage did not significantly influence the failure rate. Patients attending the first recall were significantly older and had more fillings than patients not attending.

Conclusions

In a group of Class I/II restorations (including cuspal-coverage), there was no significant difference in failure rates between ormocer-based and bis-GMA-based restorative systems after one year. A previous root canal treatment had no negative influence on the failure rate. A longer observation period is indicated to get clear evidence of the long-term performance of these composite resin systems.     

Clinical evaluation of proximal contacts of Class II esthetic direct restorations.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effectiveness of proximal contacts in Class II restorations using two types of matrix bands (steel and polyester) with two different restoration techniques (incremental and with prepolymerized particles). METHOD AND MATERIALS: Eighty-eight Class II adjacent restorations using Prodigy resin composite were performed: 44 with the incremental technique (22 with steel matrix bands, 22 with polyester matrix bands) and 44 utilizing prepolymerized resin particles (22 steel matrix, 22 polyester matrix). The restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline and at 6, 12, and 18 months. Proximal contacts obtained immediately after restoration procedure in all restorations were satisfactory. RESULTS: No statistically significant alterations were found in 18 months of evaluation. CONCLUSION: Regardless of the utilized resin composite, there were no differences in the amount of proximal contact variations with respect to tested techniques and matrices.     

Three-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial of the posterior composite QuiXfil in class I and II cavities

This longitudinal randomized controlled clinical trial evaluated direct composite restorations for clinical acceptability as posterior restoratives in single- or multi-surface cavities and provides a survey of the 3-year results. Three dentists placed 46 QuiXfil (Xeno III) and 50 Tetric Ceram (Syntac Classic) composite restorations in stress-bearing class I and II cavities in first or second molars (43 adult patients). Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and after 3 years by two other dentists using modified US Public Health Service criteria. At the last recall period, 40 QuiXfil and 46 Tetric Ceram restorations were assessed. A total of 92.5% of QuiXfil and 97.8% of Tetric Ceram posterior composites were assessed to be clinically excellent or acceptable with predominating alpha scores. Up to the 3-year recall, three QuiXfil restorations failed because of bulk fracture, partial tooth fracture, and postoperative symptoms. One Tetric Ceram restoration was lost due to problems with tooth integrity. No significant differences between both composites could be detected at 3 years for all evaluated clinical criteria (p > 0.05). The comparison of restoration performance with time within both groups yielded a significant increase in marginal discoloration (p = 0.007) and deterioration of marginal integrity (p = 0.029) for QuiXfil and significant increase in marginal discoloration (p = 0.009) for Tetric Ceram. However, both changes were mainly effects of scoring shifts from alpha to bravo. Clinical assessment of stress-bearing QuiXfil and Tetric Ceram posterior composite restorations exhibited for both materials good clinical results with predominating alpha scores.     

Effect of preparation mode on Class II resin composite repair

Complete removal of failed posterior resin composite fillings is time-expensive and involves the risk of removing sound tooth substance. In any case of failure within the composite material, intra-oral repair would be favourable. This in vitro study was conducted to examine the effect of different preparation and bonding modes on integrity of repaired restorations. Forty-eight direct Class II resin composite restorations (Syntac Classic/Tetric Ceram) were placed in extracted human third molars. The specimens were stored for 365 days and then replaced partially by removing the central part of the proximal box with all margins located in composite. The partial repairs were placed with the same materials after pre-treatment with a silicon carbide bur and Syntac Classic (n = 8). Preparation modes have been (i) box-only parallel, (ii) box-only with undercuts, (iii) box with undercuts and additional occlusal retention. The repairs were performed either with (i) Tetric Ceram or with (ii) Tetric Flow as thin lining covered with Tetric Ceram. Before and after thermomechanical loading (100 000 cycles of 50 N and 2500 cycles between +5 and +55 degrees C in an artificial mouth), marginal quality between aged and freshly applied composite was evaluated by SEM at x200 magnification and microleakage was observed by light microscopy at x50 magnification. Box-only preparations exhibited a better fatigue resistance than preparations with additional occlusal retention. This observation was independent from the presence of undercuts (P < 0.05). An intermediary layer of flowable resin composite tended to result in better marginal quality, however, not being statistically significant.     

A prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial of a one-step, self-etch adhesive with and without an intermediary layer of a flowable composite: A 2-year evaluation

Objective: The aim of this prospective, double-blind, randomized long-term study was to evaluate the clinical performance of the self-etch adhesive AdheSE One in combination with the nanohybrid composite resin Tetric Evo Ceram for Class 1 and 2 restorations. The improvement of the clinical performance with the additional use of a flowable composite resin for cavity lining was tested. Method and Materials: In accordance with a split-mouth design, 50 patients received 100 restorations in premolars and molars. One restoration of each patient was chosen at random to be restored with an intermediary layer of a flowable composite resin. Each restoration was scored according to the modified Ryge criteria at baseline and after 6, 12, and 24 months. Results: After 24 months (recall rate 88%), the results of the Ryge evaluation for groups without (group T) and with application (group TF) of Tetric Flow were as follows: marginal adaptation, Alpha 40/40 and Bravo 3/4; marginal discoloration, Alpha 39/41 and Bravo 4/3; and filling integrity, Alpha 42/42 and Bravo 1/2. All restored teeth remained vital. The parameters hypersensitivity, recurrent caries, surface, color match, and proximal contact were scored Alpha for all teeth. Between groups, no statistically significant differences could be detected (Mann-Whitney U test, P > .05). Conclusion: In consideration of the short observation period, the clinical use of AdheSE One in stress-bearing posterior cavities reached acceptable clinical results with a 1.1% cumulative failure rate after 2 years. The use of a flowable composite resin did not show an improved clinical performance. (Quintessence Int 2012;43:279?286).