Journal of Dentistry
Volume 35, Issue 2 , Pages 163-171 , February 2007

A prospective randomised clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: Three-year results

  • P. Bottenberg

      Affiliations

    • Department of Restorative Dentistry, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 103, B-1090 Brussels, Belgium
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +32 2 477 49 55; fax: +32 2 477 49 42.
    • ,
  • M. Alaerts

      Affiliations

    • Department of Restorative Dentistry, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 103, B-1090 Brussels, Belgium
    • ,
  • F. Keulemans

      Affiliations

    • Department of Restorative Dentistry, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 103, B-1090 Brussels, Belgium
    • Department of Dental Materials Science, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Universiteit van Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit; Louwesweg 1, 1066 EA Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Received 12 May 2006 ,Revised 26 June 2006 ,Accepted 7 July 2006.

References 

  1. Collins CJ, Bryant RW, Hodge KLV. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite resin restorations: 8-year findings. Journal of Dentistry. 1998;26:311–317
  2. Rosin M, Steffen H, Konschake C, Greese U, Teichmann D, Hartmann A, et al. One-year evaluation of an Ormocer restorative – a multipractice clinical trial. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2003;7:20–26
  3. Bouillaguet S, Shaw L, Gonzalez L, Wataha JC, Krejci I. Long-term cytotoxicity of resin-based dental restorative materials. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation. 2002;29:7–13
  4. Willershausen B, Schafer D, Pistorius A, Schulze R, Mann W. Influence of resin-based restoration materials on cytotoxicity in gingival fibroblasts. European Journal of Medical Research. 1999;4:149–155
  5. Kournetas N, Chakmakchi M, Kakaboura A, Rahiotis C, Geis-Gerstorfer J. Marginal and internal adaptation of class II ormocer and hybrid resin composite restorations before and after lead cycling. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2004;8:123–129
  6. Lopes LG, Cefaly DFG, Franco EB, Mondelli RFL, Lauris JRP, Navarro MFL. Clinical evaluation of two “packable” posterior composite resins: two-year results. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2003;7:123–128
  7. Köhler B, Rasmusson CG, Odman P. A five-year clinical evaluation of class II composite resin restorations. Journal of Dentistry. 2000;28:111–116
  8. Pesun IJ, Olsen AK, Hodges JS, Anderson GC. In vivo evaluation of the surface of posterior resin composite restorations: a pilot study. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2000;84:353–359
  9. Prakki A, Cilli R, Chalup Saad JO, Rodrigues JR. Clinical evaluation of proximal contacts of class II esthetic direct restorations. Quintessence International. 2004;35:785–789
  10. Oberländer H, Hiller KA, Thonemann B, Schmalz G. Clinical evaluation of packable composite resins in class-II restorations. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2001;5:102–107
  11. Lundin SA, Rasmusson CG. Clinical evaluation of a resin composite and bonding agent in class I and II restorations: 2-year results. Quintessence International. 2004;35:758–762
  12. Janda R, Roulet JF, Kaminsky M, Steffin G, Latta M. Color stability of resin matrix restorative materials as a function of the method of light activation. European Journal of Oral Sciences. 2004;112:280–285
  13. Plasmans PJ, Creugers NH, Mulders J. Long-term survival of extensive amalgam restorations. Journal of Dental Research. 1998;77:453–460
  14. Schulte AG, Vöckler A, Reinhardt R. Longevity of ceramic inlays and onlays luted with a solely light-curing composite resin. Journal of Dentistry. 2005;33:433–442
  15. Ernst CP, Martin M, Stuff S, Willershausen B . Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for posterior teeth after 3 years. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2001;5:148–155
  16. Merte I, Schneider H, Merte K. Ist es notwendig, eingeführte Füllungsmaterialien klinisch-experimentell zu bewerten?. Schweizer Monatsschrift für Zahnmedizin. 2004;114:1124–1131
  17. Leloup G, D’Hoore W, Bouter D, Degrange M, Vreven J. Meta-analytical review of factors involved in dentin adherence. Journal of Dental Research. 2001;80:1605–1614
  18. De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, et al. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. Journal of Dental Research. 2005;84:118–132
  19. Peumans M, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials. Dental Materials. 2005;21:864–881
  20. Aw TC, Lepe X, Johnson GH, Mancl LA. A three-year clinical evaluation of two-bottle versus one-bottle dentin adhesives. Journal of the American Dental Association. 2005;136:311–322
  21. Brunthaler A, König F, Lucas T, Sperr W, Schedle A. Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2003;7:63–70
  22. Görücü J, Özgünaltay G. Fracture strength of class II slot cavities restored with polymerizable restorative materials. Polymers for Advanced Technologies. 2003;14:586–591
  23. Yap AUJ, Tan CH, Chung SM. Wear behavior of new composite restoratives. Operative Dentistry. 2004;29:269–274
  24. Manhart J, Garcia-Godoy F, Hickel R. Direct posterior restorations: clinical results and new developments. Dental Clinics of North America. 2002;46:303–339
  25. Ryge G, Snyder M. Evaluating the clinical quality of restorations. Journal of the American Dental Association. 1973;87:369–377
  26. Hayashi M, Wilson NHF, Watts DC. Quality of marginal adaptation evaluation of posterior composites in clinical trials. Journal of Dental Research. 2003;82:59–63

PII: S0300-5712(06)00132-1

doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2006.07.002

Journal of Dentistry
Volume 35, Issue 2 , Pages 163-171 , February 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution