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

BACKGROUND: The 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. METHODS: Two 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. RESULTS: All 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). CONCLUSION: The study results showed that most of the restorations observed at the 13-year recall examination maintained acceptable clinical qualities. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Beautifil restorative material demonstrated long-term successful results for restoration of posterior teeth.

A clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer and a giomer restorative material: results at eight years.

BACKGROUND: The authors evaluated the performance of a giomer restorative material (Beautifil, Shofu, Kyoto, Japan) with a self-etching primer (FL-Bond, Shofu) for posterior restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two clinicians placed 26 Class I restorations and 35 Class II restorations in 31 patients ranging in age from 21 to 62 years (mean age, 34 years). Inclusion criteria required patients to have molar-supported permanent dentition free of any edentulous spaces and no clinically significant occlusal interference, as well as one or more permanent molars or premolars requiring new or replacement Class I or II restorations. Two of the authors examined the restorations using modified U.S. Public Health Service/Ryge criteria for color match, marginal adaptation, anatomy, surface roughness, marginal staining, interfacial staining, proximal and occlusal contacts, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity and luster. RESULTS: The two authors examined all restorations at the one-year recall visit, 58 at the two-year visit, 47 at the three-year visit, 39 at the four-year visit and 41 at the eight-year visit (16 Class I and 25 Class II restorations). During the eight-year period, they detected no changes with respect to surface roughness, postoperative sensitivity or secondary caries. The majority of changes recorded were for marginal adaptation at occlusal (29 percent) and proximal (16 percent) surfaces and marginal staining at occlusal (15 percent) and proximal (32 percent) surfaces. The McNemar test showed significant changes between baseline and the eight-year evaluation only for marginal adaptation at occlusal surfaces (P = .0047) and marginal staining at proximal surfaces (P = .04). None of the restorations failed. CONCLUSION: Most of the restorations maintained good quality during the observation period. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Beautiful restorative material and FL-Bond bonding system, when placed in Class I and II preparations, achieved clinically acceptable results after eight years of service.

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.

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. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Beautifil restorative material and Fluorobond bonding system provided satisfactory results when placed in Class I and Class II preparations for a period of 2 years.

Correlation of admission criteria with dental school performance and attrition.

This study was conducted to provide current information on the relationship between admission criteria and dental school performance, including the association of admission criteria and dental school outcomes such as remediation and attrition. Standard tests of bivariate association and multivariate regression models appropriate for continuous and discrete dependent variables were used to examine the relationship between multiple indicators of admission criteria and dental school performance for six recent classes at the University of Florida College of Dentistry (UFCD). The admission criteria included the undergraduate science grade point average (GPA), undergraduate non-science GPA, Dental Admissions Test (DAT) academic score, Perceptual Motor Aptitude Test (PMAT) score, and admission interview score. Measures of dental school performance were the National Dental Board Examination Part I and Part II (NB-I, NB-II) scores, yearly and final dental school GPA, and academic progress through the UFCD program. In general, most admission criteria were good bivariate indicators of dental school performance. Multivariate analyses indicated that students with higher undergraduate science GPAs and DAT academic scores were more likely to achieve higher NB-I and NB-II scores. The undergraduate science GPA and admission interview score were the most consistent determinants of dental school GPA. Students with lower undergraduate science GPAs, DAT academic scores, and PMAT scores were more likely to remediate, to repeat an academic year, or to be dismissed. Although bivariate differences were observed in several admission criteria of students who remediated one or more courses, repeated an academic year, or were dismissed only the undergraduate science GPA and the PMAT score were indicators of programmatic progress in the multivariate analysis.