24-month clinical evaluation of class-V restorations with two different composites

Objectives: Throughout the Nov-07/Jan-08 time period, 60 class-V restorations have been performed. Methods: Patients were to satisfy strict inclusion/exclusion criteria in order to be part of the study. In particular, every patient was to need at least two restorations on vital-teeth, which had to be located on opposite quadrants of the oral cavity. In each patient all the restorations were made with microlayering technique using SwissMasterLight (EMS) curing light (800mW/cm2 for 20s). The test groups were randomly assigned to the class V cavites using composite and adhesive materials as follows: testing material - Venus-Diamond and GlumaComfortBond (Heraeus) competitor - CeramX-Duo and Prime&Bond-NT (Dentsply) A quadrant-based randomization was used to assign to every restoration its filling material and adhesive system: restorations have been performed according to the adhesive dentistry techniques by one expert clinician (>10 years of clinical experience). Each restoration was polished with the 2-step polishing system provided by Heraeus-Kulzer. This system includes a pre-polshier and a high-gloss finisher. The polishing time used is be 20-sec with the pre-polisher and 40 sec with finisher. Results: Clinical evaluations were made by two independent clinicians with more than 80 % of agreement using a visual-loop (4.5x). Two year controls have been executed with USPHS evaluating system. None of the restorations received a Charlie rating. The restorations received 92% (Venus-Diamond) and 85% (CeramX-Duo) Alpha ratings for surface texture. The defects/gaps in marginal adaptation score was recorded as increased. Some restoration was lost, in testing-material 5% (Venus-Diamond) and in competitor-group 12 % (CeramX-Duo). We noticed a 23% in (A) and 25% in (B) rated Bravo for color matching ability. No restoration showed post-operative sensitivity or adverse events were reported. The total absence of post-operative sensibility has to be pointed out. Conclusions: In this clinical trial testing material behave as well as the competitor