Clinical Evaluation of Two Packable Posterior Composites: Five-Year Follow-up

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of two packable posterior composites: Alert-Jeneric/Pentron (A) and SureFil-Dentsply (S). Methods: Thirty-three patients received one Alert and one SureFil restoration resulting in a total of 66 restorations in this study. The restorations were placed according to the manufacturer's specifications by one operator and were finished and polished after one week. Photographs were taken at baseline and five years later. Clinical evaluation was performed by two independent evaluators using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. After five years, one Alert restoration was replaced and 59 restorations (29A and 30S) were evaluated in 30 patients. Criterion A (sensitivity and vitality) was applicable to all 59 restorations. Criterion B was distributed among restorations as follows: surface texture (23A; 6S), color (4A; 6S), marginal discoloration (10A; 7S), marginal adaptation (4A; 3S), surface staining (3A; 1S), retention (4A; 3S), wear resistance (2A; 2S) and secondary caries (1S). Only one SureFil restoration presented C criterion for retention, marginal adaptation and secondary caries. The kappa score for inter-examiner agreement for all the evaluation criteria was 0.97. The obtained data were tabulated and statistically analyzed using the Fisher, Chi-square and McNemar tests at p<0.05. Results: After 5 years, SureFil showed a significantly better performance than Alert with respect to surface texture, whereas both composites performed similarly with respect to all the other criteria. There was a statistically significant difference between baseline and 5-year results for marginal discoloration (A; S), surface texture (A; S) and color (S). Conclusion: After 5 years of clinical service, Alert and Surefil packable resin composites performed clinically well in restoring cavities in posterior teeth.