Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (Dyract AP) in class I cavities: 5-year results

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the five-year clinical performance of Dyract AP, a polyacid-modified resin composite, in restorations of Class I carious lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred eight Class I carious lesions in 21 patients were restored with Dyract AP. The lesions, which were macroscopically diagnosed with a probe, involved fissures. The average buccolingual width of the cavities was equal to or less than one-third of the intercuspal width. Restorations were clinically evaluated by two experienced, calibrated examiners at baseline and at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years, utilizing the modified Ryge criteria. The evaluation criteria included color match, marginal discoloration, wear or loss of anatomical form, caries, marginal adaptation, and surface texture. RESULTS: At the end of the 5-year period, a total of 13 restorations had failed, and the cumulative rate of success was 93.37%. By the 5-year recall, 12 restorations had carious lesions adjacent to the margins, and 1 restoration had discoloration that was rated as Charlie. Color changes, marginal discoloration, wear or loss of anatomical form, caries, marginal adaptation, and change in surface texture were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.001) after 5 years. Aside from the thirteen failed restorations, the degrees of color matching, marginal discoloration, wear or loss of anatomical form, caries, marginal adaptation, and surface texture were clinically acceptable at 5 years after treatment. CONCLUSION: At the end of 5 years, Dyract AP exhibited acceptable clinical performance in the treatment of Class I carious lesions. Therefore, it can be considered an alternative material for the restoration of Class I cavities.     

Three-year clinical evaluation of a resin modified glass-ionomer cement and a composite resin in non-carious class V lesions

The purpose of this study was a 3-year clinical evaluation of a resin modified glass-ionomer and a composite resin restorative material in non-carious class V lesions. In 24 patients 98 non-carious class V lesions were restored with either a resin modified glass-ionomer (Vitremer), or a composite resin restoration (Z100). The restorations were clinically evaluated after 6, 12, 24 and 36 months with the US Public Health Service criteria. At 3 years, 88 teeth of 21 patients were evaluated. All restorations were rated clinically acceptable for colour match, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation and anatomical form. Restoration retention of both groups was high without any statistically significant difference. However, Vitremer restorations showed a lower incidence of Alfa scores for colour match and marginal discoloration than Z100 restorations (P < 0.05).     

Clinical evaluation of different posterior resin composite materials: a 7-year report.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical performance of 120 posterior composite restorations placed in 38 patients after a period of 7 years. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Eighty-eight Class I and 32 Class II restorations were made (93 molars and 27 premolars) using three different resin composite materials: Z100, Clearfil Ray-Posterior, and Prisma TPH. The restorations were evaluated using Ryge's criteria for color match, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, surface texture, and anatomic form at baseline, 1,2, 5, and 7 years. Photographs and radiographs were taken at each recall period. RESULTS: At 7-year recalls, 70 restorations were available for examination. Four restorations had failed due to secondary caries. Saliva sampling was performed to determine the level of mutans streptococci and lactobacilli for the four failed restorations at the last recall. No statistically significant differences were found among the materials in regard to color match, anatomic form, and secondary caries. Clearfil Ray-Posterior had statistically significantly rougher surface texture than the surrounding enamel compared to the other resin composites. Z100 showed more cavosurface margin discoloration after 5 years than the other two resin composites. All materials had slight marginal adaptation problems at the 7-year recall. There was no apparent relationship between the levels of mutans streptococci and lactobacilli in saliva and the failed restorations. CONCLUSION: The three posterior composites tested had acceptable clinical performance after 7 years.     

Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (Dyract AP) in Class I cavities: 3-year results

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the 3-year clinical performance of the polyacid-modified resin composite Dyract AP in restorations for Class I carious lesions. METHODS: 108 Class I cavities in 21 subjects were restored with Dyract AP. The lesions, which were diagnosed macroscopically with a probe, involved fissures and had reached the dentin, while lateral spread was limited and localized to the dentin. The average facio-lingual width of the cavities was equal to or less than one-third the intercuspal width. Restorations were evaluated clinically by two experienced, calibrated examiners at baseline and at 1, 2, and 3 years, according to the modified Ryge criteria, (color match, marginal discoloration, wear or loss of anatomical form, caries, marginal adaptation, and surface texture). RESULTS: None of the restorations failed at the end of the first year. At 2 years, two restorations required immediate replacement due to caries lesions adjacent to the margins. At 3 years, six restorations had caries lesions adjacent to their margins, and the cumulative rate of success was 93.4%. Color changes and marginal discolorations were found to be statistically significant (P < 0.001) at 3 years, although none of the restorations needed to be replaced. Significant differences were also observed in the caries rate (P < 0.001) at 3 years. Aside from the eight failed restorations, the degrees of color matching, marginal discoloration, wear or loss of anatomical form, caries, marginal adaptation, and surface texture were clinically acceptable at 3 years post-treatment.     

Two-year clinical evaluation of four polyacid-modified resin composites and a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement in Class V lesions.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the clinical performances of four polyacid-modified resin composites (F2000, Dyract AP, Compoglass F, and Elan) and one resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (Vitremer) in Class V abrasion/erosion lesions. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Twenty restorations of each of the five restorative materials were placed in noncarious cervical abrasion/erosion lesions by one dentist. No cavity preparation was attempted. All teeth were isolated with cotton rolls and gingival retraction cord. The materials were manipulated according to the manufacturer's instructions and placed with the help of cervical matrixes. Restorations were finished and polished immediately after the placement. Evaluations were performed at baseline and 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after placement for retention, color match, cavo-surface marginal discoloration, anatomic form, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, and postoperative sensitivity. RESULTS: Retention levels at 2 years were 90% for F2000, 90% for Dyract AP, 89% for Compoglass F, 84% for Elan, and 95% for the Vitremer restorations. No statistically significant differences were found among the materials after 2 years for any evaluation category. CONCLUSION: Polyacid-modified resin composite and resin-modified glass-ionomer cement restorations showed acceptable clinical performance after 2 years.     

Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (Dyract) in class III cavities: three-year results

This study evaluated the three-year clinical performance of a polyacid-modified resin composite material, Dyract (DeTrey/Dentsply, Konstanz, Germany), in Class III cavities. Sixty-two Class III cavities in 30 patients were restored with Dyract. Restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline, one-, two- and three-year recalls according to the modified Ryge criteria by two experienced, calibrated examiners. After three years, the retention rate was 96.7%. At the one-year interval, one restoration had to be replaced due to sensitivity. At the two-year recall, one restoration, with a caries lesion adjacent to its margin, was clinically unacceptable and had to be replaced. Except for these two restorations, all other restorations were clinically acceptable in regard to color match, marginal discoloration, wear or loss of anatomical form, caries, marginal adaptation and surface texture after three years. At the end of three years, marginal discoloration was statistically significant (p=0.017) but did not require replacement of any of the restorations. Dyract exhibited significant marginal discoloration after three-year clinical performance in Class III cavities.     

Clinical evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite (Dyract) in class V carious lesions: 5-year results

This study evaluated the 5-year clinical performance of polyacid-modified resin composite, Dyract (DeTrey/Dentsply, Konstanz, Germany), restorations in class V carious lesions. Ninety-two class V carious lesions in 28 patients were restored with Dyract. Restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline, 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year recalls and were evaluated according to the modified Ryge criteria by two experienced calibrated examiners in regard to color match, marginal discoloration, wear or loss of anatomical form, caries, marginal adaptation, and surface texture. The retention rate after 5 years compared to baseline in class V carious restorations was 84%, with only 12 restorations failing. Color change and marginal discoloration in restorations were found to be statistically significant (p = 0.0238 and p < 0.0001, respectively) at the end of the 5 years, but did not require replacement of any of the restorations. The results of this study revealed that at the end of 5 years, Dyract exhibited a clinically acceptable success rate but had significant color changes and marginal discoloration in class V carious lesions.     

Three-year clinical evaluation of a compomer and a resin composite as Class V filling materials

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the placement of two restorative materials, including a compomer (F2000, 3M ESPE) and a resin composite (Silux Plus, 3M ESPE), in non-carious cervical lesions using a self-etching bonding agent (F2000 self-etching primer/adhesive) and a fifth generation bonding agent (Single Bond, 3M ESPE) and to evaluate and compare these restorations for marginal discoloration, secondary caries, anatomical form, retention, surface texture and marginal adaptation at baseline and annually for three years. F2000 and Silux Plus were used to restore the teeth with moderate-sized non-carious cervical lesions. F2000 was placed using two different bonding agents: F2000 self-etching primer/adhesive (F2000SE group) and Single Bond (F2000SB group); Silux Plus was placed as a control using Single Bond (SiluxSB group). Thirty restorations of each material/dentin adhesive combination were placed. All restorations were evaluated at baseline and annually for three years using a modified USPHS scale. At the end of the three-year recall, Silux Plus had significantly better surface texture than F2000 (p < 0.0001). In addition, marginal adaptation significantly worsened over time starting at one year, as compared with baseline, for all groups (p < 0.0001). When anatomic form was compared between F2000 and Silux Plus, the p-value was 0.085, demonstrating that F2000 was slightly better than Silux Plus. Likewise, when comparing marginal adaptation between the F2000SE and SiluxSB groups, the p-value was 0.064, demonstrating that F2000 with the self-etching primer had better margins than Silux Plus with Single Bond. No other differences were found among the groups.     

Clinical evaluation of class II Targis inlays: preliminary results after 1 year

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a new generation of restorative resin, Targis (Vivadent), in class II inlay restorations. Forty class II Targis inlays were placed (18 premolars, 22 molars) in 26 patients (mean age=25.5). All test teeth were vital. All restorations were in occlusion and were placed adhesively using Variolink II high viscosity (Vivadent) in combination with Syntac adhesive system under rubber-dam by the same operator. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6 months and 1 year, according to modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria by two examiners. The parameters evaluated were: anatomical form, marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, colour match, surface finish, gingival index and secondary caries. Post-operative sensitivity was determined by direct questioning. Regarding all of the clinical evaluation criteria all 40 inlays exhibited clinically acceptable scores after 1-year evaluation period. Relying on these early 1-year results, the new restorative material (Targis) seems to be promising in class II inlays.     

Five-year clinical evaluation of Dyract in small Class I cavities

PURPOSE: To evaluate the 5-year clinical performance of Dyract in small Class I cavities in non stress-bearing areas. METHODS: On 36 patients, 87 restorations needing small cavity preparations were performed. The lesions were diagnosed macroscopically with a probe. They involved shallow fissures, and had reached dentin but the lateral spread was limited and localized in dentin. Cavities were designed to be on non stress bearing areas. Cavities' average facio-lingual width were prepared to be 1/3 or less than the intercuspal width. At baseline, 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year recalls, the restorations were evaluated according to the modified Ryge criteria by two calibrated, experienced examiners. RESULTS: None of the restorations was lost and retention rate was 100% at the end of 1 year. After 2 years, one restoration (1.2%) had to be replaced due to caries lesion adjacent to its margin and the rate of retention was 98.8%. At the 3-year recall, four restorations, at the 4-year, one restoration and at the 5-year, one restoration had caries lesions adjacent to their margins and the cumulative retention rates were 94.2%, 92.9% and 91.5% respectively. Significant differences were detected between all of the evaluation periods in regard to color match rate (P = 0.00001), with the exception of rate between the baseline and 1 year evaluations. In regard to the marginal discoloration rates, there were statistically significant differences (P = 0.00001) between all of the evaluation periods with the exception of rates between the baseline and 1-year, 3- and 4-year, and 4- and 5-year results. Except for the failed restoration, no other restoration was clinically unacceptable in regard to color match, wear or loss of anatomic form, marginal discoloration, caries, marginal adaptation and surface texture.     

Four-year clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and resin-based restorative material

PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of a universal resin-based restorative material (Beautifil) in combination with a self-etching primer (Fluorobond) for posterior restorations. METHODS: 61 restorations, 26 Class I and 35 Class II, were placed by two clinicians in 31 patients under rubber dam isolation. Two other calibrated clinicians evaluated the restorations using USPHS/Ryge criteria observing the following characteristics: color match, marginal adaptation, anatomy, roughness, marginal staining, interfacial staining, contact, secondary caries, and luster. Chi-Square and Fisher's Exact Test were used for statistical analysis (alpha=0.05). RESULTS: All the restorations were assessed at baseline and alpha scores predominated for all criteria. All restorations were examined at the 1-year recall examination. 58 restorations were examined at the 2-year recall (23 Class I and 35 Class II), 47 (16 Class I and 31 Class II) at the 3-year recall. The present 4-year report covers 39 restorations (12 Class I and 27 Class II). Marginal adaptation, staining, anatomy, and color matching constitute the majority of the recorded changes. Chi-Square and Fisher's Exact Test of the frequency of clinical rating of each characteristic showed that there were no statistically significant differences at each recall with respect to the baseline observations (P> 0.05), except for occlusal marginal stain. Statistical significance was detected for the occlusal marginal stain at 1-year (P= 0.06), 2-year (P= 0.01) and 4-year (P= 0.002) when compared to baseline data.     

Comparative clinical evaluation of different treatment approaches using a microfilled resin composite and a compomer in Class III cavities: two-year results

This study evaluated the 24-month clinical performance of a microfilled composite using a one-bottle bonding system and a compomer that uses one-bottle bonding systems, which include a non-rinse conditioner or 36% phosphoric acid gel in Class III cavities. Each patient received three restorations due to primary caries of the anterior teeth, resulting in a total of 96 restorations. Three types of restoration/adhesive combinations were used: a microfilled resin composite (Filtek A110) with a one-bottle bonding system (Single Bond); a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) (Dyract AP) with a filled one-bottle bonding system (Prime & Bond NT) using 36% phosphoric acid pretreatment and a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) (Dyract AP) with a filled one-bottle bonding system (Prime & Bond NT) using a non-rinse conditioner (NRC) and a self-priming pretreatment. At baseline and one- and two-year recalls, color match, marginal discoloration, wear or loss of anatomical form, caries, marginal adaptation and surface texture of the restorations were evaluated by two experienced, calibrated examiners using the modified Ryge criteria. After two years, one restoration from each group had a rating of Charlie (C) for both color match and marginal discoloration and needed to be replaced. Therefore, the failure rate was 3.6% (success rate: 96.4%) for each group at the end of two years. Statistical analysis showed no significant differences among the three groups in color match, marginal discoloration, wear or loss of anatomical form, marginal adaptation and surface texture after two years. Also, no statistically significant differences were determined for each group with respect to color match, marginal discoloration, wear or loss of anatomical form, marginal adaptation and surface texture at the end of two years.     

A clinical evaluation of a giomer restorative system containing surface prereacted glass ionomer filler: Results from a 13-year recall examination

BackgroundThe authors' objective was to evaluate the long-term performance of a resin-based composite restorative material (Beautifil, Shofu, Kyoto, Japan) in combination with a self-etching primer (FL-Bond, Shofu) for posterior restorations.MethodsTwo clinicians placed 61 restorations, 26 Class I and 35 Class II, in 31 patients. They placed restorations while using rubber dam isolation. Two other clinicians examined the restorations according to the modified U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria, observing color match, marginal adaptation, anatomy, surface roughness, marginal staining, interfacial staining, proximal and occlusal contacts, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity and luster. Clinicians examined restorations at baseline as well as at one-, two-, four-, eight- and 13-year recall visits.ResultsAll restorations were examined at one year, 58 (95 percent) at two years, 39 (64 percent) at four years and 41 (67 percent) at eight years; at the 13-year recall examination, 41 (67 percent) either were examined or had a known outcome. Of the 41 restorations seen at the 13-year examination, 25 restorations (14 Class I and 11 Class II) were intact and acceptable, two had secondary caries and 14 either were not present or had failed (two were missing, 10 had received crowns and two had been replaced). No changes were observed in the modified USPHS criteria for 12 of the 25 restorations that were intact (48 percent). Areas of change observed in 13 of the 25 intact restorations included color match (12 percent), marginal adaptation at the occlusal (20 percent) and proximal surfaces (4 percent), marginal staining on occlusal (24 percent) and proximal surfaces (8 percent), and interfacial staining on occlusal (4 percent) and proximal surfaces (12 percent).ConclusionThe study results showed that most of the restorations observed at the 13-year recall examination maintained acceptable clinical qualities.Practical ImplicationsBeautifil restorative material demonstrated long-term successful results for restoration of posterior teeth.     

Two-year clinical evaluation of resinous restorative systems in non-carious cervical lesions

This controlled clinical trial evaluated the 2-year clinical performance of a one-bottle etch-and-rinse adhesive and resin composite system (Excite/Tetric Ceram) compared to a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) (Vitremer/3M) in non-carious cervical lesions. Seventy cervical restorations (35 resin composite - RC- restorations and 35 RMGIC restorations) were placed by a single operator in 30 patients under rubber dam isolation without mechanical preparation. All restorations were evaluated blindly by 2 independent examiners using the modified USPHS criteria at baseline, and after 6, 12 and 24 months. Data were analyzed statistically by Fisher's exact and McNemar tests. After 2 years, 59 out of 70 restorations were evaluated. As much as 78.8% retention rate was recorded for RC restorations, while 100% retention was obtained for RMGIC restorations. Fisher's exact test showed significant differences (p=0.011) for retention. However, there were no significant differences for marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, anatomic form and secondary caries between the RC and RMGIC restorations. The McNemar test detected significant differences for Excite/TC between baseline and the 2-year recall for retention (p=0.02), marginal integrity (p=0.002) and anatomic form (p=0.04). Therefore, the one-bottle etch-and-rinse bonding system/resin composite showed an inferior clinical performance compared to the RMGIC.     

Composite versus amalgam restorations

In a clinical study the behaviour of posterior composite restorations was evaluated. For the study, 232 Class I or II restorations in premolars and molars were made by three operators in a group of forty-nine adult patients. Each patient underwent one or two series of four restorations. The materials within a series were a strontium glass filled composite (Profile), a microfilled composite (Estic MF), a macrofilled composite (Adaptic Radiopaque) and a high copper amalgam (Dispersalloy). The last two materials served as a negative and positive controls respectively. For a period of 3 years the clinical behaviour was evaluated yearly with the USPHS criteria (anatomic form, marginal adaptation, colour match, marginal staining and caries). Differences in the ratings of the criteria between materials, tooth type and evaluation year were tested statistically for significance. The number of restorations replaced after 3 years in clinical service was eight (= 3.6%). The results showed that the material, tooth type and evaluation year all have an influence on the anatomic form and the colour match of the restoration. The behaviour of the three composites with respect to colour match, marginal adaptation and marginal staining was acceptable. For anatomic form, however, only the behaviour of the microfilled composite Estic MF was still acceptable after 3 years.     

Clinical Evaluation of a Nanohybrid and a Flowable Resin Composite in Non-carious Cervical Lesions: 24-Month Results

Purpose: To evaluate the 24-month clinical performance of cervical restorations using a nanohybrid and a flowable resin composite with a one-step self-etching adhesive. Materials and Methods: Twenty-one patients with at least one pair of non-carious cervical lesions participated in this study. A total of 134 non-carious cervical lesions were restored (67 with a nanohybrid resin composite, Grandio; 67 with a flowable resin composite, Grandio Flow) using a one-step self-etching adhesive system, Futura Bond NR, by one dentist. The restorations were evaluated for retention, color match, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, surface texture, anatomic form, and secondary caries by two calibrated examiners at baseline and after 6, 12, and 24 months using modified USPHS criteria. The survival rates of the restorations were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier estimator. The comparison of resin composites for each category was performed with the Pearson chi-square test, and the performance of restorations at baseline and after each recall time was evaluated using McNemar's test (p < 0.05). Results: All patients attended the 24-month recall. The retention rates at 6 months were 66% and 58%, and 61% and 57% at 12 months for Grandio and Grandio Flow, respectively. At the 24-month recall, the retention rate was 60% for Grandio and 54% for Grandio Flow. No statistically significant differences were found in retention rates among the restorative materials in any evaluation period (p > 0.05). For marginal discoloration and anatomical form, three Grandio and three Grandio Flow restorations showed Bravo scores at the end of 24 months. The restorations in both groups had Alfa ratings of 100% for the rest of the criteria evaluated. Conclusion: The nanohybrid and flowable resin composites showed similar clinical performances in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions over 24 months.     

Clinical evaluation of direct esthetic restorations in cervical abrasion/erosion lesions: one-year results.

One hundred sixteen cervical abrasion/erosion lesions were restored with one of the following techniques: (1) glass-ionomer cement, (2) composite resin with a dentinal bonding agent, or (3) composite resin with a glass-ionomer cement liner and a dentinal bonding agent. The restorations were assessed at baseline and at 6 months and 1 year postrestoration for retention, caries, color match, marginal staining, and surface texture. No statistically significant differences were found in retention, caries, color match, or marginal staining. A statistically significant difference was found with regard to surface texture: glass-ionomer cement restorations demonstrated a rougher surface than did the composite resin restorations. A substantial number of restorations composed of composite resin with a dentinal bonding agent demonstrated a color shift towards mismatch when evaluated at 6 months. This difference was not significant at the 1-year followup.     

自酸蚀和酸蚀-冲洗粘结剂对Ⅰ类洞复合树脂充填的2年临床评价

目的:评价酸蚀-冲洗粘结剂和自酸蚀粘结剂在后牙I类洞修复中的临床效果。方法:共25名后牙患龋的患者入选了本次临床试验。每位患者随机接受了至少2颗后牙I类洞的修复,68例患牙随机分为2组,实验组采用自酸蚀粘结剂+复合纳米树脂修复(Adper Easy One+Filtek Z350,3M ESPE)38例,对照组使用全酸蚀牙本质粘结剂+复合纳米树脂修复(Adper Single Bond 2+Filtek Z350,3MESPE)30例。在充填后即刻、术后6个月、1年和2年时,根据改良的USPHS量表,从保存率、术后敏感、颜色匹配、边缘染色、边缘完整性、解剖形态、继发龋和表面质地7个方面对每个修复体都进行评分。结果:在复查的2年内,全酸蚀和自酸蚀组的保存率分别为100%和90.6%,其他各项指标亦均无显著性差异。结论:自酸蚀粘结剂和全酸蚀粘结剂用于修复后牙Ⅰ类洞均可获得较理想的临床效果。     

Clinical evaluation of composite and compomer restorations in primary teeth: 24-month results

PURPOSE: This split-mouth, blind study evaluated the clinical performance of Dyract AP, F2000, and Heliomolar placed in primary molars of 30 children (mean age, 6 years and 2 months). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From a total of 79 restorations accomplished, 27 were built with Heliomolar (18 Class I, and 9 Class II), 30 were with F2000 (21 Class I and 9 Class II), and 22 were built with Dyract AP (14 Class I and 8 Class II). All of teeth restored had primary caries lesions. At 6, 12, 18 and 24 months, 60 restorations (75%) were evaluated using USPHS criteria for: color match (CM), marginal adaptation (MA), marginal discoloration (MD), anatomic form (AF) and secondary caries (SC) by three calibrated operators. The Alpha+Bravo score percentage was considered as clinical success. The data were subjected to statistical analysis by Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests (p<0.05). RESULTS: Heliomolar showed the smallest success clinical at 12 months for marginal adaptation and secondary caries, and at 18 months for marginal discoloration. Regarding color match and anatomic form, no significant differences were found among the groups at each evaluation period. When materials were compared, Heliomolar did not show a significant difference among the evaluated periods for any criteria, remaining with the lowest scores. Significant differences were observed at 12 months for F2000 (marginal adaptation), and at 24 months for Dyract AP (marginal discoloration and secondary caries) and for F2000 (color match and marginal discoloration). CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that Dyract AP and F2000 showed the best clinical performance over 24 month-evaluations for marginal discoloration and secondary caries, and color match and marginal adaptation, respectively. The use of the resin composite Heliomolar in Class I/II restorations in primary molars should be carefully considered.     

Self-etching primer and resin-based restorative material: two-year clinical evaluation

Purpose: This study was undertaken to evaluate the performance of posterior restorations placed using a self-etching primer (Fluorobond, Shofu Inc., Kyoto, Japan) and a universal resin-based restorative material (Beautifil, Shofu Inc., Kyoto, Japan).
Materials and Methods: The 61 restorations evaluated were 26 Class I and 35 Class II that were placed by two clinicians in 31 patients. Two other calibrated clinicians evaluated the restorations using United States Public Health Service (USPHS)/Ryge criteria observing the following characteristics: color match, marginal adaptation, anatomy, roughness, marginal staining, interfacial staining, contact, secondary caries, and luster. Restorations were placed under rubber dam isolation. Chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests were used for statistical analysis ( p = .05).
Results: All the restorations were assessed at baseline and alfa scores predominated for all criteria. At the 12-month recall examination, one patient dropped out of the study and two restorations were replaced by a clinician not involved in the project. At 24-month recall, 58 restorations were examined (23 Class I and 35 Class II). From baseline to 24 months, 19 of the 44 restorations changed from alfa to bravo and 13 from bravo to alfa for a variety of reasons. No significant differences were found for any of the clinical criteria ( p > .05). The 2-year recall substantiated the 1-year results.
Conclusion: Beautifil and the self-etching primer Fluorobond provided satisfactory restorations after a 2-year observation period.