We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry



Forgotten password?


J Adhes Dent 16 (2014), No. 6     6. Jan. 2015
J Adhes Dent 16 (2014), No. 6  (06.01.2015)

Page 585-592, doi:10.3290/j.jad.a33202, PubMed:25516885

A Randomized 10-year Prospective Follow-up of Class II Nanohybrid and Conventional Hybrid Resin Composite Restorations
van Dijken, Jan W. V. / Pallesen, Ulla
Purpose: To evaluate the 10-year durability of a nanohybrid resin composite in Class II restorations in a randomized controlled intraindividual comparison with its conventional hybrid resin composite predecessor.
Materials and Methods: Each of 52 participants received at least two Class II restorations that were as similar as possible. The cavities were chosen at random to be restored with a nanohybrid resin composite (Excite/Tetric EvoCeram (TEC); n = 61) and a conventional hybrid (Excite/Tetric Ceram (TC); n = 61). The restorations were evaluated with slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and then annually for 10 years. The overall performance of the experimental restorations was tested after intra-individual comparison and their ranking was tested using Friedman's two-way ANOVA. The level of significance was set at 5%.
Results: Four patient drop-outs with 8 restorations (4TEC, 4TC) were registered during the follow-up. A prediction of the caries risk showed that 16 of the evaluated 52 patients were considered as high risk patients. In total, 22 restorations, 11 TEC (3 premolars, 8 molars) and 11 TC (3 premolars, 8 molars) restorations failed during the 10 years. The main reason for failure was secondary caries (50%). 63% of the recurrent caries lesions were found in high caries risk participants. The overall success rate at 10 years was 80.7%, with an annual failure rate of 1.9%. No statistically significant difference was found in the overall survival rate between the two investigated resin composites.
Conclusion: The nanohybrid and the conventional hybrid resin composite showed good clinical effectiveness in extensive Class II restorations during the 10-year study.

Keywords: dental restorations, clinical, nanofiller, resin composite, posterior