One-year clinical evaluation of two polyacid-modified resin composites (compomers) in posterior permanent teeth

dc.creatorde Moura, FR
dc.creatorPiva, E
dc.creatorLund, RG
dc.creatorPalha, B
dc.creatorDemarco, FF
dc.date2004
dc.dateSUM
dc.date2014-11-13T20:22:04Z
dc.date2015-11-26T16:02:21Z
dc.date2014-11-13T20:22:04Z
dc.date2015-11-26T16:02:21Z
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-28T22:51:46Z
dc.date.available2018-03-28T22:51:46Z
dc.identifierJournal Of Adhesive Dentistry. Quintessence Publ Co Inc, v. 6, n. 2, n. 157, n. 162, 2004.
dc.identifier1461-5185
dc.identifierWOS:000222409200011
dc.identifierhttp://www.repositorio.unicamp.br/jspui/handle/REPOSIP/81765
dc.identifierhttp://www.repositorio.unicamp.br/handle/REPOSIP/81765
dc.identifierhttp://repositorio.unicamp.br/jspui/handle/REPOSIP/81765
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/1265043
dc.descriptionPurpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of two polyacid-modified resin composites (Dyract AP and F2000) in posterior teeth after 1 year of clinical service. Materials and Methods: Seventy-two Class I restorations were performed in 33 patients (average age 25 years) by one operator. Eighty-two per cent of the restorations were located in molars. Before the proceedings, patients were informed about the aim of the study and they gave written consent to participate. At least one restoration of each material was placed in each individual. The materials were applied according manufacturer's instructions. Following finishing and polishing, one examiner performed the clinical baseline examination using the adapted USPHS system. To be included in the clinical trial, a restoration had to be rated 'Alpha'. After one year, 25 patients were recalled and 56 restorations were evaluated using the adapted USPHS system. Results: All restorations were classified as clinically satisfactory (Alpha or Bravo). However, there was a decrease in restoration quality compared to baseline. Statistical analysis (x(2) and Fisher's exact test) demonstrated differences only in relation to superficial roughness, with exhibiting F2000 more surface roughness than Dyract AP (P < 0.01). Conclusion: Based on the methodology employed, all restorations were satisfactory after one year and the two materials performed similarly, except for the surface roughness criteria.
dc.description6
dc.description2
dc.description157
dc.description162
dc.languageen
dc.publisherQuintessence Publ Co Inc
dc.publisherCarol Stream
dc.publisherEUA
dc.relationJournal Of Adhesive Dentistry
dc.relationJ. Adhes. Dent.
dc.rightsaberto
dc.sourceWeb of Science
dc.subjectcompomer
dc.subjectclinical trial
dc.subjectDyract AP
dc.subjectF2000
dc.subjectClass-ii Restorations
dc.subjectDifferent Conditioning Methods
dc.subjectModified Glass-ionomer
dc.subjectDentin Bond Strength
dc.subjectPrimary Molars
dc.subjectFluoride Release
dc.subjectMarginal Adaptation
dc.subjectAdhesive Systems
dc.subjectWear
dc.subjectDyract
dc.titleOne-year clinical evaluation of two polyacid-modified resin composites (compomers) in posterior permanent teeth
dc.typeArtículos de revistas


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución