Linked Life Data

12898294

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/12898294

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
3
pubmed:dateCreated
2003-9-26
pubmed:abstractText
The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a packable fine hybrid dental composite (Prodigy Condensable) and the influence of the additional application of a flowable resin composite (Revolution, SDS Kerr) layer on marginal integrity after 2 years in stress-bearing posterior cavities according to the Ryge criteria. In 50 patients (40.5+/-17.5 years of age), 116 class II fillings (metal matrix system, glass ionomer-cement-base in 36%, rubberdam isolation in 70%) were placed, with at least two restorations per patient. The adhesive Optibond Solo Plus was used for all the restorations. In one of the two fillings in each patient, an additional layer of the flowable composite Revolution was applied in the entire cavity and separately light-cured. Baseline scores have been rated Alfa in > or =95% and Bravo in <5%. After 2 years, the results [%] of the Ryge evaluation for the two groups with/without the additional use of Revolution were: (1) Marginal Adaptation: Alfa:78/70, Bravo:16/27, Charlie:0/0, Delta:6/4; (2) Anatomic Form: Alfa:89/95, Bravo:6/2, Charlie:6/4; (3) Secondary Caries: Alfa:98/100, Bravo:2/0; (4) Marginal Discoloration: Alfa:76/68, Bravo:24/32, Charlie:0/0; (5) Surface: Alfa:90/91, Bravo:4/5, Charlie:0/0, Delta:6/4; (6) Color Match: Oscar:56/57, Alfa:44/39, Bravo:0/4, Charlie:0/0. Within the observation period (recall rate: 95%), three restorations out of 116 at baseline fractured, one restoration showed a secondary caries, one tooth received endodontic treatment, and all other restored teeth remained vital. After 2 years, no statistically significant difference (Chi-square test) in the overall survival rate between the group with the additional use of Revolution (92.8%) and that without Revolution (94.6%) was found. The combined survival rate for both groups together was 93.7% of clinically acceptable restorations.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
D
pubmed:chemical
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Sep
pubmed:issn
1432-6981
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
7
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
129-34
pubmed:dateRevised
2009-11-19
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed-meshheading:12898294-Adult, pubmed-meshheading:12898294-Case-Control Studies, pubmed-meshheading:12898294-Chi-Square Distribution, pubmed-meshheading:12898294-Color, pubmed-meshheading:12898294-Composite Resins, pubmed-meshheading:12898294-Dental Caries, pubmed-meshheading:12898294-Dental Cavity Lining, pubmed-meshheading:12898294-Dental Marginal Adaptation, pubmed-meshheading:12898294-Dental Restoration, Permanent, pubmed-meshheading:12898294-Dental Restoration Failure, pubmed-meshheading:12898294-Female, pubmed-meshheading:12898294-Follow-Up Studies, pubmed-meshheading:12898294-Glass Ionomer Cements, pubmed-meshheading:12898294-Humans, pubmed-meshheading:12898294-Male, pubmed-meshheading:12898294-Resin Cements, pubmed-meshheading:12898294-Surface Properties, pubmed-meshheading:12898294-Survival Analysis
pubmed:year
2003
pubmed:articleTitle
Two-year clinical performance of a packable posterior composite with and without a flowable composite liner.
pubmed:affiliation
Department of Operative Dentistry, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Augustusplatz 2, 55131, Mainz, Germany. Ernst@mail.uni-mainz.de
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Clinical Trial, Comparative Study, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't