Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study compared the clinical performance of a nanofilled resin composite for posterior restorations with 2 microhybrid and 1 packable composite after 12 months of clinical service. Forty-two patients with at least 5 Class I or II restorations under occlusion were enrolled in this study. A total of 148 restorations were placed, 25% for each material (Filtek Supreme, Pyramid, Esthet-X or Tetric Ceram). Two calibrated operators placed all restorations, according to the manufacturers' instructions. One week later, the restorations were finished/polished. Two independent examiners evaluated the restorations at baseline and after 12 months according to the USPHS modified criteria. All patients attended the 12-month recall and 148 restorations were evaluated. Friedman repeated measures analysis of variance by rank and Wilcoxon sign-ranked test for pair-wise comparison was used for data analysis (alpha=0.05). All materials showed only minor modifications, and no differences were detected between their performance at baseline and after 12 months. After 1 year, the nanofilled resin composite showed similar performance to the other packable and microhybrid resin composites.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dresch et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: