Clinical evaluation of two packable posterior composites A five-year follow-up

Background. Research has suggested that packable resin-based composites inserted with a placement technique similar to amalgam condensation can reduce the sensitivity associated with posterior restorations. The authors evaluated the clinical performance, including associated sensitivity, of two packable composites in a randomized five-year clinical trial. Methods. A single operator randomly placed two restorations in each of 33 patients: one restoration consisting of Alert (Jeneric/Pentron, Wallingford, Conn.) and the other consisting of SureFil (Dentsply/Caulk, Milford, Del.). There were 30 Class I and 36 Class II restorations. Two independent evaluators evaluated the restorations by using modified U.S.; Public Health Service criteria. The authors analyzed data by means of the Fisher, chi(2) and McNemar tests at P < .05. Results. Of 60 restorations evaluated at five years, two Class II restorations (one SureFil, one Alert) failed. All other restorations received the highest score possible for sensitivity and vitality. The only difference between the composites at the five-year recall was the significantly better surface texture of SureFil. The authors observed significantly different scores between the baseline and at five years for marginal discoloration (Alert and SureFil), surface texture (Alert and SureFil) and color (SureFil). Conclusions. Both packable resin-based composites showed excellent durability during the five-year follow-up. Clinical Implications. The investigated resin-based composites are suitable for posterior restorations.

Quantitative 3D profilometry and SEM analysis of the adaptation of root-end filling materials placed under an optical microscope

P>Aim To evaluate by 3D profilometry and scanning electron microscopy (SEM), the marginal adaptation of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and Sealer 26 placed in root-end cavities with direct vision or under an optical microscope. Methodology The root ends of 52 root filled canine teeth were filled with MTA or Sealer 26 under direct vision or optical microscope (n = 13). In each group, eight specimens were analysed by profilometry for measurement of the area and depth of gaps. In the other five specimens, gap area was measured using SEM to verify marginal adaptation and surface characteristic. Data were analysed by parametric (anova and Tukey) and non-parametric (Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn) tests. Results The assessment of the adaptation of both materials to dentine was not influenced by the mode of visualization, which was confirmed by both profilometry and SEM observations. The voids measured with profilometry for Sealer 26 under direct vision were significantly wider and deeper than those for MTA under direct vision (P < 0.05). In SEM, significantly larger gap areas were observed with Sealer 26 (P < 0.05). Conclusion Root-end cavities filled with MTA had smaller gaps and better marginal adaptation than Sealer 26.