IADR Abstract Archives
Nanohybrid vs. Fine Hybrid Composite in Extended Class II Cavities: Ten-Year Results
Objectives: In a controlled prospective split-mouth study, the clinical behaviour of two different resin composites in extended Class II cavities should be observed over ten years.
Methods: Thirty patients received 68 direct resin composite restorations (Solobond M/Grandio: n=36; Syntac/Tetric Ceram: n=32) by one dentist in a private practice. 35% of cavities revealed no enamel at the bottom of the proximal box, 48% of cavities provided <0.5mm remaining proximal enamel width. Restorations were examined according to modified USPHS criteria at baseline, and after six months, one, two, four, six, eight, and ten years.
Results: 29 patients attended at the ten-year recall (dropout rate: 3%). Overall success rate was 97% (Kaplan-Meier survival algorithm, Fig. 1). One restoration failed due to bulk fracture and one due to cusp fracture. Materials had no significant influence on any criterion after ten years (p>0.05; Mann‐Whitney U-test), with two exceptions: After ten years of clinical service, surface roughness and color match of Tetric Ceram restorations was significantly better (p<0.05; Mann-Whitney U-test). Molar restorations performed worse than premolar fillings after ten years regarding the criteria marginal integrity, restoration integrity, and tooth integrity (p<0.05; Mann‐Whitney U-test). Irrespective of the resin composite used, significant changes over time were found for all criteria (Friedman test; p<0.05). Tooth integrity significantly deteriorated due to increasing enamel cracks and chippings over time to 89% after ten years (p<0.05). Enamel chippings or cracks were significantly more often observed in molars than in premolars (p<0.05). Main reasons for decreasing restoration integrity were visible signs of wear over time (80% after ten years, Mann-Whitney U-test, p<0.05).
Conclusions: Both materials performed satisfactorily over the 10-year observation period. Due to the extension of the restorations, wear was clearly visible after ten years of clinical service.
Supported by Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany.
Methods: Thirty patients received 68 direct resin composite restorations (Solobond M/Grandio: n=36; Syntac/Tetric Ceram: n=32) by one dentist in a private practice. 35% of cavities revealed no enamel at the bottom of the proximal box, 48% of cavities provided <0.5mm remaining proximal enamel width. Restorations were examined according to modified USPHS criteria at baseline, and after six months, one, two, four, six, eight, and ten years.
Results: 29 patients attended at the ten-year recall (dropout rate: 3%). Overall success rate was 97% (Kaplan-Meier survival algorithm, Fig. 1). One restoration failed due to bulk fracture and one due to cusp fracture. Materials had no significant influence on any criterion after ten years (p>0.05; Mann‐Whitney U-test), with two exceptions: After ten years of clinical service, surface roughness and color match of Tetric Ceram restorations was significantly better (p<0.05; Mann-Whitney U-test). Molar restorations performed worse than premolar fillings after ten years regarding the criteria marginal integrity, restoration integrity, and tooth integrity (p<0.05; Mann‐Whitney U-test). Irrespective of the resin composite used, significant changes over time were found for all criteria (Friedman test; p<0.05). Tooth integrity significantly deteriorated due to increasing enamel cracks and chippings over time to 89% after ten years (p<0.05). Enamel chippings or cracks were significantly more often observed in molars than in premolars (p<0.05). Main reasons for decreasing restoration integrity were visible signs of wear over time (80% after ten years, Mann-Whitney U-test, p<0.05).
Conclusions: Both materials performed satisfactorily over the 10-year observation period. Due to the extension of the restorations, wear was clearly visible after ten years of clinical service.
Supported by Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany.
2107956_File000000.jpg