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

Bottenberg, P.; Jacquet, W.; Alaerts, M.; Keulemans, F.

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2008.11.011

« Previous Next »Journal of Dentistry
Volume 37, Issue 3 , Pages 198-203, March 2009

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

P. Bottenberg
- Department of Restorative Dentistry, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 103, B-1090 Brussels, Belgium
- Corresponding author. Tel.: +32 2 4774955; fax: +32 2 477 4942.
W. Jacquet
- Department of Mathematics, Operational Research, Statistics, and Information Systems, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium
M. Alaerts
- Department of Restorative Dentistry, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 103, B-1090 Brussels, Belgium
F. Keulemans
- Department of Restorative Dentistry, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 103, B-1090 Brussels, Belgium
- Department of Dental Material Sciences, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and VU University Amsterdam, Louwesweg 1, 1066 EA Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Received 12 August 2008; received in revised form 10 November 2008; accepted 15 November 2008.

Abstract

Objectives

Ormocer composites, consisting of a silicon-based polymer, have been developed recently as a tooth-colored restorative material. The purpose of this prospective randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the performance of two small-particle hybrid ormocer-based restorative systems (AD, Admira/Admira Bond, VOCO; DE, Definite/Etch & Prime 3.0, Dentsply) and one small-particle hybrid bis-GMA-based composite restorative system (TC, Tetric-Ceram/Syntac, Ivoclar-Vivadent) in class II cavities.

Methods

From 128 occlusal-proximal restorations (44 AD, 43 DE and 41 TC) placed in 32 adult patients, eventually 77 (22 AD, 29 DE and 26 TC) remained available for evaluation after 5 years. Their clinical performance was scored according to the USPHS criteria and evaluation of bite-wing radiographs.

Results

After 5 years, eight AD, six DE and seven TC restorations had failed (p=0.10, log-rank test). The main reason was fracture or marginal gap formation, while secondary caries accounted for four failures. In all restorations the quality of surface, margins and contact point decreased significantly compared to baseline. DE had a significant poorer color match (p<0.01). Statistical evaluation using the KW test showed that failures were concentrated on specific patients.

Conclusions

In a group of class II restorations, there was no significant difference in failures after 5 years between ormocer-based and bis-GMA-based restorative systems.

Keywords: Composite resins, Ormocer, USPHS criteria, Clinical trial