Clinical performance and SEM marginal quality of extended posterior resin composite restorations after 12 years.

Objective: To investigate the clinical behavior of two different resin-based restorative systems in extended Class II cavities in a controlled prospective split-mouth study over 12 years and to assess marginal quality under a SEM using epoxy replicas.

Methods: Thirty patients received 68 resin composite restorations (Solobond M+Grandio: n=36; Syntac+Tetric Ceram: n=32) by one dentist in a private practice. 35% of cavities revealed no enamel at the bottom of the proximal box, 48% of cavities provided <0.

Ten-year Clinical Performance of Posterior Resin Composite Restorations.

Purpose: To investigate the clinical behavior of two different resin-based restorative systems in Class II cavities in a controlled prospective split-mouth study over 10 years.

Materials And Methods: Thirty patients received 68 resin composite restorations (Solobond M + Grandio: n = 36; Syntac + Tetric Ceram: n = 32) by one dentist in a private practice. 35% of cavities revealed no enamel at the bottom of the proximal box, 48% of cavities provided < 0.

Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in extended class II cavities: 8-year results.

Objective: In a controlled prospective split-mouth study, clinical behavior of two different resin composites in extended class II cavities was observed over 8 years.

Materials And Methods: Thirty patients received 68 direct resin composite restorations (Solobond M/Grandio, Voco--n = 36; Syntac/Tetric Ceram, Ivoclar Vivadent--n = 32) by one dentist in a private practice. Thirty-five percent of cavities revealed no enamel at the bottom of the proximal box, 48% of cavities provided <0.

Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in extended Class II cavities after six years.

Objectives: In a controlled prospective split-mouth study, clinical behavior of two different resin composites in extended Class II cavities was observed over six years.

Methods: Thirty patients received 68 direct resin composite restorations (Solobond M + Grandio: n=36; Syntac + Tetric Ceram: n=32) by one dentist in a private practice. All restorations were replacement fillings, 35% of cavities revealed no enamel at the bottom of the proximal box, in 48% of cavities remaining proximal enamel width was <0.

Nanohybrid composite vs. fine hybrid composite in extended class II cavities: clinical and microscopic results after 2 years.

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical behavior of two different resin composites in Class II cavities over a period of 2 years in a controlled prospective split-mouth study.

Methods: 30 subjects received 68 direct resin composite restorations (Grandio bonded with Solobond M: n=36, Tetric Ceram bonded with Syntac: n=32) by one dentist in a private practice. All restorations were replacement restorations, 24 cavities (35%) revealed no enamel at the bottom of the proximal box, in 33 cavities (48%) the proximal enamel width was < 0.

Four-year clinical performance and marginal analysis of pressed glass ceramic inlays luted with ormocer restorative vs. conventional luting composite.

Objectives: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the ormocer Definite (Degudent, Hanau, Germany) as resin luting cement.

Methods: In a controlled prospective clinical study, 57 Cergogold (Degudent) all-ceramic inlays were placed in 24 patients by four dentists. The restorations were luted with two different systems (MD=Definite Multibond+Definite; SV=Syntac+Variolink Ultra, Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein) without lining.

Operator vs. material influence on clinical outcome of bonded ceramic inlays.

Objective: The aim of the present study was to clinically evaluate the suitability of Definite Multibond and Definite ormocer resin composite for luting of Cergogold glass ceramic inlays in a two-center trial involving two dentists.

Methods: Thirty-nine patients received 98 Cergogold inlays with at least one inlay luted with Definite Multibond/Definite (n=45) and at least one inlay luted with Syntac/Variolink Ultra (n=53) in a split mouth design. Treatments were carried out in two private practices by two operators (Operator A: n=38; Operator B: n=60).

Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in Class II cavities: clinical results and margin analysis after four years.

Objectives: This controlled prospective split-mouth study evaluated the clinical behavior of two different resin composites in extended Class II cavities over a period of four years.

Methods: Thirty patients received 68 direct resin composite restorations (Grandio bonded with Solobond M: n=36, Tetric Ceram bonded with Syntac: n=32) by one dentist in a private practice. All restorations were replacement fillings, 24 cavities (35%) revealed no enamel at the bottom of the proximal box, in 33 cavities (48%) the proximal enamel width was less than 0.

Clinical performance of posterior compomer restorations over 4 years.

Purpose: To clinically evaluate two polyacid-modified resin composites (Hytac and Dyract AP) for the restoration of posterior teeth over a 4-year period and to investigate accessible margins by light microscopy.

Methods: In a controlled prospective clinical study, 71 cavities (21 occlusal, 41 MO/OD, 9 MOD) in 30 patients were restored with compomers by three dentists. Thirty-eight restorations were placed with the combination OSB/Hytac, the same patients received 33 restorations with Prime&Bond 2.