<i>In Vitro</i> and <i>In Vivo</i> Evaluation of a New Universal Composite Resin

Leinfelder, Karl F.; Broome, James C.

doi:10.1111/j.1708-8240.1994.tb00855.x

Cited by 16 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the in vivo short time quality of the restorations seems to be comparable to previous versions of adhesive systems. [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] In the present study, we tested in noncarious cervical lesions, which have been assumed to be due to the effects of abrasion, erosion, and/or stress corrosion. 21 All trial teeth with loss of filling were in occlusal contacts during lateral excursion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two-year clinical performance of two primer adhesives on Class V restorations

Merte

Fröhlich

Häfer

et al. 2000

J. Biomed. Mater. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The prime purpose of this clinical trial was to examine the clinical quality and retention rate of resin composite in connection with two recently developed acetone-based primer adhesives in Class V lesions according to ADA Clinical Protocol Guidelines for Dentin and Enamel Adhesive Materials. All cavities were nonretentive and predominantly in dentin (mixed Class V lesions). Total bonding was not limited either by sub-base or by base materials. All the trial restorations were placed under rubber dam. Group 1 (Version 16-135-1) and group 2 (Version 17-17-1) consisted of 42 patients with 46 trials and 38 patients with 43 fillings, respectively. The mean follow-up period and the recall response at the end of the study of group 1 were 22.8 months and 92.9% and of group 2 were 22.4 months and 94.7%. The trial restorations of both groups maintained their predominantly rated USPHS-Code Alpha level within the follow-up period. The cumulative failure rate of two trials in group 1 and four in group 2 determined a failure percentage of 4.4% and 9.3%, respectively, which is within the ADA-18 month limit of <10% Charlie. The Version KL 16-135-1 came into the market as Prime & Bond(R) 2.1, and the other one turned out to be Dyract Adhesive(R) PSA, which was primarily introduced as a single-component adhesive for compomer restorative Dyract(R) (Dentsply DeTrey, Germany).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two-year clinical performance of two primer adhesives on Class V restorations

Merte

Fröhlich

Häfer

et al. 2000

J. Biomed. Mater. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Heat-curing or a post-lightcure heat treatment improves the properties of composites by enhancing cure and/or cross-linking of the polymer (Wendt, 1989;. Clinical evaluations have shown improvement in wear resistance (Leinfelder and Broome, 1994) and resistance to marginal degradation (Wendt and Leinfelder, 1990) as a result of the heat treatment.…”

Section: (A) Present Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current Trends in Dental Composites

Ferracane

1995

Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine

380

276

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:The clinical performance of dental composites has been significantly improved over the past decade through modifications in formulation that include: using more stable polymerization promoters for greater color stability; incorporating high concentrations of finely ground fillers to produce adequate strength and excellent wear resistance while retaining translucency; adding radiopacifying agents for improved diagnostics; and utilizing dentin adhesives. However, there are problems which limit the use of composites, especially in posterior teeth. The materials remain very technique-sensitive, due to the extensive contraction which accompanies polymerization and negatively influences marginal sealing. In addition, the materials are generally considered to have inadequate mechanical properties and wear resistance in contact areas to serve as total replacements for amalgams. Current efforts are focusing on several areas, including the development of non-or minimallyshrinking dental composites containing spiro-orthocarbonates as additives to dimethacrylates or epoxy-base resins, and the production of alternative filler materials for ideal wear resistance and esthetics. This paper reviews the composition and characteristics of current dental composites, as well as recent areas of study.

show abstract

“…Rezin kompozitler amalgama göre manipülasyonu daha zor ve yapım aşama-sı çok daha uzun süren materyallerdir. Rezin kompozitler kaviteye yerleştirilirken; aproksimal kontağın sağlanması, materyalin el aletlerine yapışması ve zayıf adaptasyon gibi problemlerle karşılaşılabilir (13). Amalgama alternatif olarak nano dolduruculu , ormoser (orjinal modifiye seramik) ve siloran teknolojileri piyasaya sunulmuştur.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Ormoser ve nano dolduruculu kompozitlerle restore edilmiş endodontik tedavili dişlerin kırılma dirençleri

ASLAN¹

2011

Ankara Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to measure the fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with ormocer,hybrid and nanofill composite resins. Fourty sound, caries-free human maxillary premolar teeth were used. The teeth were endodontically treated and MOD cavities prepared. The prepared teeth were randomly divided into four groups of 10 teeth. Each group was restored with four different restorative materials (one ormocer, one nanofill, one hybrid and one high copper amalgam). Copper rings were filled with self-curing polymethylmetacrylate resin and the teeth were placed into resin up to the level of the cementoenamel junction. The copper rings with the teeth were placed into a Universal Testing Machine and the buccal walls were subjected to a slowly increasing compressive force until fracture occurred. The force of fracture of the various groups compared. Statistical analysis was performed by using one way analysis of variance(ANOVA).There was no statistically significant difference between the groups. There was no difference in the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth following restoration with amalgam and composite restorative materials. Within the limits of this study we can suggest that resins used in this study are good alternative materials to amalgam.

show abstract

In Vitro and In Vivo Evaluation of a New Universal Composite Resin

Cited by 16 publications

References 4 publications

Two-year clinical performance of two primer adhesives on Class V restorations

Two-year clinical performance of two primer adhesives on Class V restorations

Current Trends in Dental Composites

Ormoser ve nano dolduruculu kompozitlerle restore edilmiş endodontik tedavili dişlerin kırılma dirençleri

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About