Eight-year randomized clinical evaluation of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch or a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Eight-year randomized clinical evaluation of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch or a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive. / van Dijken, Jan WV; Pallesen, Ulla.

In: Clinical Oral Investigations, Vol. 19, No. 6, 27.06.2015, p. 1371-1379.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

van Dijken, JWV & Pallesen, U 2015, 'Eight-year randomized clinical evaluation of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch or a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive', Clinical Oral Investigations, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1371-1379.

APA

van Dijken, J. WV., & Pallesen, U. (2015). Eight-year randomized clinical evaluation of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch or a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive. Clinical Oral Investigations, 19(6), 1371-1379.

Vancouver

van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U. Eight-year randomized clinical evaluation of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch or a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2015 Jun 27;19(6):1371-1379.

Author

van Dijken, Jan WV ; Pallesen, Ulla. / Eight-year randomized clinical evaluation of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch or a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive. In: Clinical Oral Investigations. 2015 ; Vol. 19, No. 6. pp. 1371-1379.

Bibtex

@article{8d19ac837f2241598be5e2b5d34fa481,
title = "Eight-year randomized clinical evaluation of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch or a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive",
abstract = "Objectives: The aimof this study is to observe the durability of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations, placed with two different adhesive systems, in an 8-year follow-up. Methods: Seventy-eight participants received at random at least two Class II restorations of the ormocer-based nanohybrid resin composite (Ceram X) bonded with either a one-step self-etch adhesive (Xeno III) or a control two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Excite). The 165 restorations were evaluated using slightly modified United States Public Health Services (USPHS) criteria at baseline and then yearly during 8 years. Results: One hundred and fifty-eight restorations were evaluated after 8 years. Three participants with five restorations (three Xeno III, two Excite) were registered as dropouts. Twenty-one failed restorations (13.3 {\%}) were observed during the follow-up. Twelve in the one-step self-etch adhesive group (13.5 {\%}) and nine in the two-step etch-and-rinse group (13.0 {\%}). This resulted in nonsignificant different annual failure rates of 1.69 and 1.63 {\%}, respectively. Fracture of restoration was the main reason for failure. Conclusion: Good clinical performance was shown during the 8-year evaluation and no significant difference in overall clinical performance between the two adhesives. Fracture was the main reason for failure. Clinical relevance: The one-step self-etch adhesive showed a good long-term clinical effectiveness in combination with the nanohybrid resin composite in Class II restorations.",
keywords = "The Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Dental restorations , Clinical, Composite Resins, Nano , Posterior , Self-etch adhesive",
author = "{van Dijken}, {Jan WV} and Ulla Pallesen",
year = "2015",
month = "6",
day = "27",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "1371--1379",
journal = "Clinical Oral Investigations",
issn = "1432-6981",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Eight-year randomized clinical evaluation of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch or a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive

AU - van Dijken, Jan WV

AU - Pallesen, Ulla

PY - 2015/6/27

Y1 - 2015/6/27

N2 - Objectives: The aimof this study is to observe the durability of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations, placed with two different adhesive systems, in an 8-year follow-up. Methods: Seventy-eight participants received at random at least two Class II restorations of the ormocer-based nanohybrid resin composite (Ceram X) bonded with either a one-step self-etch adhesive (Xeno III) or a control two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Excite). The 165 restorations were evaluated using slightly modified United States Public Health Services (USPHS) criteria at baseline and then yearly during 8 years. Results: One hundred and fifty-eight restorations were evaluated after 8 years. Three participants with five restorations (three Xeno III, two Excite) were registered as dropouts. Twenty-one failed restorations (13.3 %) were observed during the follow-up. Twelve in the one-step self-etch adhesive group (13.5 %) and nine in the two-step etch-and-rinse group (13.0 %). This resulted in nonsignificant different annual failure rates of 1.69 and 1.63 %, respectively. Fracture of restoration was the main reason for failure. Conclusion: Good clinical performance was shown during the 8-year evaluation and no significant difference in overall clinical performance between the two adhesives. Fracture was the main reason for failure. Clinical relevance: The one-step self-etch adhesive showed a good long-term clinical effectiveness in combination with the nanohybrid resin composite in Class II restorations.

AB - Objectives: The aimof this study is to observe the durability of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations, placed with two different adhesive systems, in an 8-year follow-up. Methods: Seventy-eight participants received at random at least two Class II restorations of the ormocer-based nanohybrid resin composite (Ceram X) bonded with either a one-step self-etch adhesive (Xeno III) or a control two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Excite). The 165 restorations were evaluated using slightly modified United States Public Health Services (USPHS) criteria at baseline and then yearly during 8 years. Results: One hundred and fifty-eight restorations were evaluated after 8 years. Three participants with five restorations (three Xeno III, two Excite) were registered as dropouts. Twenty-one failed restorations (13.3 %) were observed during the follow-up. Twelve in the one-step self-etch adhesive group (13.5 %) and nine in the two-step etch-and-rinse group (13.0 %). This resulted in nonsignificant different annual failure rates of 1.69 and 1.63 %, respectively. Fracture of restoration was the main reason for failure. Conclusion: Good clinical performance was shown during the 8-year evaluation and no significant difference in overall clinical performance between the two adhesives. Fracture was the main reason for failure. Clinical relevance: The one-step self-etch adhesive showed a good long-term clinical effectiveness in combination with the nanohybrid resin composite in Class II restorations.

KW - The Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences

KW - Dental restorations

KW - Clinical

KW - Composite Resins

KW - Nano

KW - Posterior

KW - Self-etch adhesive

M3 - Journal article

VL - 19

SP - 1371

EP - 1379

JO - Clinical Oral Investigations

JF - Clinical Oral Investigations

SN - 1432-6981

IS - 6

ER -

ID: 162907664