Related Experiment Videos
Clinical evaluation of four Class 5 restorative materials: 3-year recall
John O Burgess1, John R Gallo, Alan H Ripps
1Department of Operative Dentistry and Biomaterials, School of Dentistry, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, 1100 Florida Ave., Box 137, New Orleans, LA 70119, USA. jburge@lsuhsc.edu
Purpose:
To place four restorative materials, including two resin-based composites (Pertac III and Synergy), an improved resin-modified glass-ionomer (Fuji II LC Improved), and a compomer (Dyract AP), in Class 5 non-carious cervical lesions and to evaluate and compare those restorations for marginal discoloration, anatomic form, surface texture, secondary caries, retention, and marginal adaptation at baseline and annually for 3 years.
Methods:
The tested materials were used to restore moderate-size Class 5 non-carious cervical lesions. All materials were used following the manufacturers' directions for etching, bonding, curing, and finishing. Thirty restorations of each material were placed. After rubber-dam isolation, a bevel was placed on the occlusal margin of all preparations except the Fuji II LC Improved, and all preparations were cleaned with pumice. Each restorative material was placed and cured in increments except Fuji II LC Improved. All restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6 months, 1, 2, and 3-year recalls using a modified USPHS scale.
Results:
Analysis with Chi Square and Logit Analysis revealed that, at 3 years, Pertac III and Fuji II LC Improved were significantly rougher than all other materials. Pertac III had significantly poorer marginal adaptation than all other materials. All other comparisons were not significant. At 3-year recall, most restorations were satisfactory.