Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Dental Association–ADA (2001) Acceptance program guidelines, Restorative materials. 1–10. http://www.ada.org/prof/prac/stands/restmat.pdf

  2. Christensen GJ (1998) Amalgam vs. Composite resin. J Am Dent Assoc 129:1757–1759

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cobb DS, MacGregor KM, Vargas MA, Denehy GE (2000) The physical properties of packable and conventional posterior resin-based composites: a comparison. J Am Dent Assoc 131(11):1610–1615 (Nov)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Davis N (2003) A nanotechnology composite. Compend Contin Educ Dent 24(9):662, 665–7, 669–70, (Sep)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Duke ES (2003) Has dentistry moved into the nanotechnology era? Compend Contin Educ Dent 24(5):380–382 (May)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. el-Mowafy OM, Lewis DW, Benmergui C, Levinton (1994) Meta-analysis on long-term clinical performance of posterior composite restorations. J Dent 22(1):33–43 (Feb)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ernst C-P, Kötter T, Victor A, Canbek K, Brandenbusch M, Willershausen B (2004) Marginal integrity of self and total etching adhesives in two different application protocols. J Adhes Dent 6:25–32

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ernst CP, Martin M, Stuff S, Wilershausen B (2001) Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for posterior teeth after 3 years. Clin Oral Investig 5:148–155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gängler P, Hoyer I, Montag R (2001) Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: the 10-year report. J Adhes Dent 3(2):185–194 (summer)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Geurtsen W, Schoeler U (1997) A 4-year retrospective clinical study of class I and class II composite restorations. J Dent 25: 229–232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hannig M, Bott B (2000) Randschluβverhalten von plastischen zahnfarbenen Füllungen in dentinbegrenzten Klasse-II-Kavitäten. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 55:134–138

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hasegawa T, Itoh K, Koike T, Yukitani W, Hisamitsu H, Wakumoto S, Fujishima A (1999) Effect of mechanical properties of resin composites on the efficacy of the dentin bonding system. Oper Dent 24:323–330

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hoang A, Koh S, Bebermeyer R, Johnson C (1999) A review of condensable composite. J Gt Houst Dent Soc 71:15–17

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ikeda T, Sidhu SK, Omata Y, Fujita M, Sano H (2005) Colour and translucency of opaque-shades and body-shades of resin composites. Eur J Oral Sci 113:170–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lundin SA, Rasmusson CG (2004) Clinical evaluation of a resin composite and bonding agent in class I and II restorations: 2-year results. Quintessence Int 35(9):758–762 (Oct)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Manhart J, Kunzelmann KH, Chen HY, Hickel R (2000) Mechanical properties and wear behavior of light-cured packable composite resins. Dent Mater 16(1):33–40 (Jan)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Manhart J, Neuerer P, Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A, Hickel R (2000) Three-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 84(3):289–296 (Sep)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN (2003) An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc 134(10):1382–1390 (Oct)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Miyazaki M, Onose H, Moore K (2000) Effect of operator variability on dentin bond strength of two-step bonding systems. Am J Dent 13:101–104

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pelka M, Dettenhofer G, Reinelt C, Krämer N, Petschelt A (1994) Validität und Reliabilität klinischer Kriterien für adhäsive Inlaysysteme. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 49:921–925

    Google Scholar 

  21. Price RB, Doyle G, Murphy D (2000) Effects of composite thickness on the shear bond strength to dentin. J Can Dent Assoc 66:35–39

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rueggeberg FA, Caughman WF, Curtis JW Jr, Davis HC (1993) Factors affecting cure at depths within light-activated resin composites. Am J Dent 6:91–95

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ryge G (1980) Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 30:347–358

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ryge G, Snyder M (1973) Evaluation of the clinical quality of restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 87:369–377

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Suzuki S, Leinfelder KF, Kawai K, Tsuchitani Y (1995) Effect of particle variation on wear rates of posterior composites. Am J Dent 8(4):173–178 (Aug)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Takahashi A, Sato Y, Uno S, Pereira PN, Sano H (2002) Effects of mechanical properties of adhesive resins on bond strength to dentin. Dent Mater 18:263–268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Turkun LS, Turkun M, Ozata F (2003) Two-year clinical evaluation of a packable resin-based composite. J Am Dent Assoc 134(9):1205–1212 (Sep)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ure D, Harris J (2003) Nanotechnology in dentistry: reduction to practice. Dent Update 30(1):10 (Jan–Feb)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Van Dijken JW, Horstedt P, Waern R (1998) Directed polymerization shrinkage versus a horizontal incremental filling technique: interfacial adaptation in vivo in class II cavities. Am J Dent 11:165–172

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Yap AU, Chew CL, Ong LF, Teoh SH (2002) Environmental damage and occlusal contact area wear of composite restoratives. J Oral Rehabil 29(1):87–97 (Jan)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Yap AU, Lim LY, Yang TY, Ali A, Chung SM (2005) Influence of dietary solvents on strength of nanofill and Ormocer composites. Oper Dent 30(1):129–133 (Jan–Feb)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Yap AU, Tan CH, Chung SM (2004) Wear behavior of new composite restoratives. Oper Dent 29(3):269–274 (May–Jun)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Yap AU, Yap SH, Teo CK, Ng JJ (2004) Comparison of surface finish of new aesthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent 29(1):100–104 (Jan–Feb)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Poliklinik für Zahnerhaltungskunde, Augustusplatz 2, 55131, Mainz, Germany

    Claus-Peter Ernst, Mathias Brandenbusch, Gerrit Meyer, Kerem Canbek, Franziska Gottschalk & Brita Willershausen

Authors
  1. Claus-Peter Ernst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mathias Brandenbusch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gerrit Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kerem Canbek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Franziska Gottschalk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Brita Willershausen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claus-Peter Ernst.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ernst, CP., Brandenbusch, M., Meyer, G. et al. Two-year clinical performance of a nanofiller vs a fine-particle hybrid resin composite. Clin Oral Invest 10, 119–125 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-006-0041-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-006-0041-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation