One-year clinical evaluation of direct nanofilled and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical performance of three direct composite resins and two indirect inlay systems in posterior teeth using the modified USPHS criteria. A total of 100 restorations were placed in the molars of 54 patients by one operator. All restorations were directly evaluated by two examiners at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. Statistical analysis was conducted using McNemar chi-square test at a significance level of 5% (p<0.05). Recall rate was 100% at 6 and 12 months, and all the restorations evaluated (i.e., 100%) received Alpha rating for the criteria of retention and gingival adaptation. At 12 months for the surface texture criterion, 80% of Filtek Supreme XT received Alpha rating while it was 95% for Tetric EvoCeram and AELITE Aesthetic. For marginal discoloration, 85% of Tescera ATL and Filtek Supreme XT received Alpha rating while it was 95% for Tetric EvoCeram and AELITE Aesthetic. Further, none of the restorative systems received a Charlie rating for any of the criteria at all evaluation periods. In summary, all the restorations demonstrated clinically satisfactory performance with no significant differences detected among them.

30-Month randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a nanohybrid composite

“…Hence, by virtue of the strength and aesthetic properties of resin-based nanocomposites, clinicians and dental practitioners can use them for both anterior and posterior restorations. 8,11,21 A few years ago, a new version of this composite, Filtek Supreme XT, was put on the market with major improvements in the shading after feedback on colour matching from opinion leaders and clinicians. 22 The nanoparticle composite Filtek Supreme XT (3M ESPE) is identical to the Filtek Z350 (3M ESPE) sold in Latin America.…”

“…Alpha and Bravo scores mean excellent and clinically acceptable results; a Charlie score means clinically unacceptable, an indication to replace the restoration to prevent future damage or to repair present damage. 21,25 The restorations were evaluated for 12 months with the 41 patients involved in the research. However, after 30 months, 4 patients were lost to follow-up because they had moved and could not be located.…”

A Five-Year Clinical Evaluation of Direct Nanofilled and Indirect Composite Resin Restorations in Posterior Teeth

“…7 For the first marketed nanofilled resin composite, Filtek Supreme, an acceptable 1-to 3-year performance has been shown. 45,46 Recently published short-term clinical evaluations of different nanohybrid resin composites have reported annual failure rates between 0% and 2.4%. 22,[35][36][37]47 In a study by van Dijken and Pallesen, 48 the annual failure rate of nanohybrid composite was 1.9%, and the fracture of the restoration was the main reason for failure.…”

Clinical Performance of Ormocer, Nanofilled, and Nanoceramic Resin Composites in Class I and Class II Restorations: A Three-year Evaluation

“…A clinically satisfactory performance was reported for the nanofilled resin composite in two one-year and one three-year follow-ups. 21,27,28 In a recent two-year clinical evaluation, 29 Class II restorations of the nanofilled resin composite were compared in a similar intraindividual comparison with the well-known Tetric Ceram. Both restorative materials showed acceptable clinical performance, and the nanofilled resin composite showed no significant difference in overall clinical performance compared to Tetric Ceram.…”