Related Experiment Videos
Clinical evaluation of two "packable" posterior composite resins
L G Lopes1, D F G Cefaly, E B Franco
1Department of Operative Dentistry, Bauru Dental School, University of São Paulo, Brazil.
Clinical Oral Investigations
|August 9, 2002
Summary
This study compared two packable posterior composites, Prodigy Condensable (P) and Definite (D). After one year, both showed acceptable performance, though Definite had worse marginal adaptation and Prodigy Condensable had more surface staining.
Area of Science:
- Dental Materials Science
- Clinical Dentistry
- Restorative Dentistry
Background:
- Packable posterior composites offer handling advantages for dental restorations.
- Evaluating the long-term clinical performance of these materials is crucial for informed clinical decision-making.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the clinical performance of Prodigy Condensable (P) and Definite (D) packable posterior composite materials.
- To assess changes in restoration quality over a one-year period using standardized criteria.
Main Methods:
- A one-year clinical evaluation of 78 posterior composite restorations (38 P, 40 D) in 36 patients.
- Restorations assessed at baseline and one year using United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria by two independent evaluators.
- Statistical analysis using Fisher and McNemar tests to compare material performance.
Main Results:
- After one year, Prodigy Condensable showed a significant increase in superficial staining.
- Definite exhibited significantly worse marginal adaptation compared to baseline and Prodigy Condensable.
- While most restorations met 'A' criteria, specific degradation was noted in color, staining, form, and adaptation for both materials.
Conclusions:
- Both Prodigy Condensable and Definite demonstrated acceptable clinical performance over the one-year evaluation period.
- Prodigy Condensable showed increased surface staining, while Definite had poorer marginal adaptation.
- Further long-term studies are recommended to fully ascertain the clinical longevity and comparative efficacy of these posterior composite materials.