IADR Abstract Archives
Comparison of Two Universal Composites in Posterior Teeth: 12 Months Results
Objectives: To evaluate and compare the clinical behavior of a universal light-curing, ultra-fine particle hybrid composite and a new version of this material in Class 1 and Class 2 cavities over 12 months.
Methods: Forty patients (21 females, 19 males) with ages ranging between 18-38 years (23.15±5.15) received 80 (13 Cl1 and 67 Cl2) composite restorations (Charisma/Charisma Classic - Heraeus Kulzer) in combination with an etch and rinse adhesive system (Gluma 2 Bond) under rubber dam isolation. Two experienced operators performed all the restorations according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Restorations were evaluated by the other two examiners according to the FDI criteria at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. Polyvinyl siloxane impressions were taken and examined under scanning electron microscope (SEM) at each recall. Data were analyzed with Mc Nemar, Chi-square and Cohran Q tests.
Results: All patients attended the recalls. None of the restorations were failed. Minor surface staining was observed in 2 (2.5%) Charisma and 3 (3.8%) Charisma Classic restorations while 6 (7.5%) Charisma and 5 (6.2%) Charisma Classic restorations showed minor marginal staining. Three (3.8%) Charisma and 4 (5.0%) Charisma Classic restorations showed deviations in shade. Small marginal fracture was seen in 1 (1.2%) Charisma Classic restoration. Little plaque was found adjacent to 3 (3.8%) Charisma and 1 (1.2%) Charisma Classic restorations. No significant difference was observed between the two restorative materials for any criteria evaluated at 12 months (p>0.05). SEM evaluations were in accordance with the clinical findings.
Conclusions: Both materials performed satisfactorily over the 12-month observation period.
Methods: Forty patients (21 females, 19 males) with ages ranging between 18-38 years (23.15±5.15) received 80 (13 Cl1 and 67 Cl2) composite restorations (Charisma/Charisma Classic - Heraeus Kulzer) in combination with an etch and rinse adhesive system (Gluma 2 Bond) under rubber dam isolation. Two experienced operators performed all the restorations according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Restorations were evaluated by the other two examiners according to the FDI criteria at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. Polyvinyl siloxane impressions were taken and examined under scanning electron microscope (SEM) at each recall. Data were analyzed with Mc Nemar, Chi-square and Cohran Q tests.
Results: All patients attended the recalls. None of the restorations were failed. Minor surface staining was observed in 2 (2.5%) Charisma and 3 (3.8%) Charisma Classic restorations while 6 (7.5%) Charisma and 5 (6.2%) Charisma Classic restorations showed minor marginal staining. Three (3.8%) Charisma and 4 (5.0%) Charisma Classic restorations showed deviations in shade. Small marginal fracture was seen in 1 (1.2%) Charisma Classic restoration. Little plaque was found adjacent to 3 (3.8%) Charisma and 1 (1.2%) Charisma Classic restorations. No significant difference was observed between the two restorative materials for any criteria evaluated at 12 months (p>0.05). SEM evaluations were in accordance with the clinical findings.
Conclusions: Both materials performed satisfactorily over the 12-month observation period.