ABSTRACT
Fifty predominantly moderate or large Class II or multiple-surface Class I resin composite restorations were placed in molars under rubber dam isolation. The restorative systems used were: Alert Condensable (Jeneric/Pentron) and SureFil (Dentsply/Caulk). The restorations were classified according to size, with 7 small, 25 moderate and 18 large, of which 8 were cusp replacement restorations. Baseline, 6, 12 and 18-month double-blinded clinical evaluations were carried out using modified USPHS criteria. The independent variables: restorative material, restoration size and three other clinical factors, were tested using a Multiple Logistic Regression procedure to determine if any were predictive of failure. Of the 50 restorations, four failed by the 18-month recall, three failed due to fracture of the restoration and one due to secondary caries. Both restorative systems demonstrated a 92% success rate. No association between restoration size (p = 0.99) or restorative material (p = 0.65) and failure was found. Similarly, the additional variables, occlusal contact type, presence of occlusal wear facets and first or second molar, were not predictive of failure.
