Two-year clinical performance of a nanofiller vs a fine-particle hybrid resin composite.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical performance of the nanofiller resin composite Filtek Supreme (3M ESPE) vs the conventional fine hybrid resin composite Tetric Ceram (Ivoclar Vivadent) in stress-bearing posterior cavities. In accordance with a split mouth study design, 50 patients (35.7+/-11.3 years) received at least one pair of Filtek Supreme and Tetric Ceram restorations in each of two comparable class II cavities. To obtain comparability, the adhesive Scotchbond 1 was used for all the restorations. After 2 years, the restorations (total number 112) were scored according to the Ryge criteria. After 2 years (recall rate 100%), the results (%) of the Ryge evaluation for the two groups Filtek Supreme/Tetric Ceram were marginal adaptation: Alfa 96/96, Bravo 2/2, Charlie 2/0, and Delta 0/2; anatomic form: Alfa 98/98, Bravo 0/0, and Charlie 2/2; secondary caries: Alfa 100/100 and Bravo 0/0; marginal discoloration: Alfa 98/100, Bravo 2/0, and Charlie 0/0; surface: Romeo 95/95, Sierra 4/4, Tango 0/0, and Victor 2/2; and color match: Oscar 46/57, Alfa 50/39, Bravo 2/4, and Charlie 2/0. One Tetric Ceram and one Filtek Supreme restoration showed fractures that needed restorative intervention. No severe postoperative sensitivities were reported within the observation period. All restored teeth remained vital; the integrity of all the teeth was scored Alfa. After 2 years, no statistically significant differences (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test) was found between the two restorative materials investigated. Therefore, Filtek Supreme, based on a new nanofiller technology, has proved efficaciousness for clinical use in stress-bearing posterior cavities.

Marginal integrity of self- and total-etching adhesives in two different application protocols.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the marginal integrity of four self-etching adhesives (Prompt L-Pop III, Resulcin Aqua Prime & MonoBond N, AC Bond, AC Bond + Desensitizer) and three total-etch adhesives (Opti-Bond FL, Excite, Gluma Comfort Bond) in two different application protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Standardized MOD cavities (n = 40) were prepared in 280 extracted human teeth (one cervical margin in cementum, one in enamel). In one application protocol, the adhesive was applied prior to placement of the Tofflemire matrix (n = 20); in the other, the metal matrix was placed first (n = 20). Light curing was carried out from the occlusal aspect. After thermocycling (5000 times, 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C), specimens were immersed in 2% methylene blue for 10 s. Then the median percentages of dye-penetrated margins (surface analysis) were determined separately for the cervical cementum, cervical enamel, and lateral enamel margins of the proximal boxes. RESULTS: At the cervical cementum margins, statistically significantly worse results were obtained for all adhesives when the matrix system was placed prior to application of the adhesive. In the cervical enamel margins, OptiBond FL, Gluma Comfort Bond, and Prompt L-Pop III performed significantly better when the adhesive was applied prior to the matrix. On lateral enamel margins, only OptiBond FL and Resulcin Aqua Prime showed significantly less dye penetration if the matrix was placed first. CONCLUSION: Most of the total-etch materials produced marginal integrity significantly superior to that of the majority of the self-etching materials. Due to a significant influence of the application protocol on marginal integrity, it is strongly recommended to apply the adhesive system before placement of the matrix.