DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a10899, PubMed ID (PMID): 16536345Pages 47-51, Language: EnglishWilson, Nairn H. F./Gordan, Valeria V./Brunton, Paul A./Wilson, Margaret A./Crisp, Russell J./Mjör, Ivar A.Purpose: This two-centre study evaluated the clinical performance of Class I and Class II restorations of the giomer material Beautifil, placed using Fluorobond, a self-etching adhesive system, to determine the suitability of the test system as an alternative for the restoration of posterior teeth.
Materials and Methods: A total of 108 restorations, comprising 72 Class II and 36 Class I restorations, was placed predominantly in molars (82%). Evaulations using modified USPHS/Ryge criteria were conducted at baseline and thereafter at 6 months and 1, 2, and 3 years. Die stone replicas of the restored teeth were examined retrospectively.
Results: A total of 5 restorations was found to fail during the study - 3 in the first year and 2 during the third year of the study. Occlusal marginal adaptation was less than ideal at baseline in 11% of cases, primarily as a consequence of overcontouring, as observed in the die stone replicas. The combined percentage Alpha ratings at 3 years were: colour match, 98%; marginal adaptation (occlusal), 78%; marginal adaptation (proximal), 97%; anatomic form (occlusal), 99%; anatomic form (proximal), 95%; surface roughness (occlusal), 100%; surface roughness (proximal), 100%; marginal staining (occlusal), 90%; marginal staining (proximal) 81%; interfacial staining (occlusal), 99%; interfacial staining (proximal), 100%; contacts (occlusal), 95%; contacts (proximal), 93%; sensitivity, 100%; secondary caries, 100%; lustre of restoration, 100%.
Conclusion: It is concluded that the 3-year performance of Fluorobond-bonded Beautifil for Class I and II restorations demonstrated some marginal changes, but most of the direct evaluation ratings were > 90% Alpha, with the performance observed being similar in the two centres.
Keywords: giomer, self etching adhesive, clinical trial, posterior restoration