No abstract

No abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performance of nanohybrid composite resin in Class II restorations placed with a one-step self-etch adhesive with that of microfilled composite resin of permanent posterior molar teeth. A total of 100 participants who received Class II restorations either with nanohybrid composite resin bonded with a single step self-etch adhesive or conventional microfilled composite bonded with a single step self-etch adhesive. All restorations were evaluated by using slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and after 3, 6 and 12 months. The results revealed that nanohybrid composite resin showed better clinical outcome than that of the conventional microfilled composite resin restorations in respect to retention and marginal adaptation at 12 months observation period. It can be concluded that nanohybrid is superior to conventional microfilled composite resin in respect to retention, and marginal adaptation of Class II restorations of permanent molar teeth.

<p><span>This article has no abstract. The first 100 words appear below:</span></p><p>A 42 year old female presented with the complaints of thermal sensitivity and impaction of food during mastication on her lower left posterior region. On clinical examination, carious lesions involving proximal surface was detected at the lower left first molar tooth which extended up to the dentin. The vitality test showed that the affected tooth was vital and the tooth was also non-tender to percussion.</p>

This study compared the wear of nanohybrid and microfilled composite restorative material in occlusal restoration of first permanent molar tooth. In total, 60 first permanent molar teeth having carious lesion without any clinical and radiological indication of pulpal involvement, removal of carious dental hard tissues was performed using round carbide bur and a class I cavity was prepared, rinsed with water and then dried with gentle air. These cavities were filled with either nanohybrid or microfilled composite resin by simple random sampling by lottery method. All teeth were subjected to clinical qualitative and quantitative wear test at baseline, 3, 6 and 9 months observation period. The quantitative wear was analyzed by profile meter. The results showed that the wear depth of microfilled was significant than the nanofilled composite resin. It can be concluded that quantitative wear of microfilled had greater wear than that of nanohybrid composite restorations.