CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2010; 04(01): 057-065
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1697809
Original Article
European Journal of Dentistry

Clinical Evaluation of Resin-Based Composites in Posterior Restorations: 12-Month Results

Cigdem Celik
a   Baskent University, School of Dentistry, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Ankara, Turkey
Neslihan Arhun
b   Baskent University, School of Dentistry, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Ankara, Turkey
Kivanc Yamanel
a   Baskent University, School of Dentistry, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Ankara, Turkey
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen


30. September 2019 (online)


Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the 12 month clinical performances of two different posterior composites in Class I and Class II restorations.

Methods: Thirty-one patients (10 male, 21 female) were recruited into the study. A total of 82 Class I and Class II cavities were restored with either a nanohybrid composite (Grandio) or a low-shrinkage composite (Quixfil), using their self etch adhesives (Futura Bond and Xeno III) according to manufacturers’ instructions. The restorations were clinically evaluated 1 week after placement as baseline, and after 6 and 12 months post-operatively using modified USPHS criteria by two previously calibrated operators. Statistical analysis were performed using Pearson Chi-square and Fisher’s Exact Test (P<.05).

Results: All patients attended the 12-month recall. Lack of retention was not observed in any of the restorations. With respect to color match, marginal adaptation, secondary caries and surface texture, no significant differences were found between two restorative materials tested after 12 months (P>.05). None of the restorations had marginal discoloration and anatomic form loss on the 12 month follow-up. Restorations did not exhibit post-operative sensitivity at any evaluation period.

Conclusions: Clinical assessment of nanohybrid (Grandio) and low-shrinkage posterior composite (Quixfil) exhibited good clinical results with predominating alpha scores after 12 months. However; further evaluations are necessary for the long-term clinical performance of these materials. (Eur J Dent 2010;4:57-65)

  • References

  • 1 Gerbo L, Leinfelder KF, Mueninghoff L, Russell C. Use of optical standards for determining wear of posterior composite resins. J Esthet Dent 1990; 2: 148-152
  • 2 Leinfelder KF. Posterior composite resins: the materials and their clinical performance. J Am Dent Assoc 1995; 126: 663-672
  • 3 Manhart J, Chen HY, Hickel R. Three-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial of the posterior composite QuiXfil in class I and II cavities. Clin Oral Investig 2008 DOI: DOI:10.1007/s00784-008-0233-5
  • 4 Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN. An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2003; 134: 1382-1390
  • 5 Krämer N, Reinelt C, Richter G, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R. Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in Class II cavities: Clinical results and margin analysis after four years. Dent Mater 2009 DOI: doi:10.1016/
  • 6 Fagundes TC, Barata TJ, Bresciani E, Cefaly DF, Jorge MF, Navarro MF. Clinical evaluation of two packable posterior composites: 2-year follow-up. Clin Oral Investig 2006; 10: 197-203
  • 7 Cvar JF, Ryge G. Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. US Public Health Service Publication No 790-244 San Francisco: Government Printing Office 1971
  • 8 Wilson MA, Cowan AJ, Randall RC, Crisp RJ, Wilson NH. A practice-based, randomized, controlled clinical trial of a new resin composite restorative: one-year results. Oper Dent 2002; 27: 423-429
  • 9 Efes BG, Dörter C, Gömec Y. Clinical evaluation of an ormocer, a nanofill composite and a hybrid composite at 2 years. Am J Dent 2006; 19: 236-240
  • 10 Loguercio AD, Reis A, Rodrigues-Filho LE, Busato AL. Oneyear clinical evaluation of posterior packable resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 2001; 26: 427-434
  • 11 Ernst CP, Martin M, Stuff S, Willershausen B. Clinical performance of a packable resin composite for posterior teeth after 3 years. Clin Oral Investig 2001; 5: 148-155
  • 12 Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, Heintze SD, Mjör IA, Peters M, Rousson V, Randall R, Schmalz G, Tyas M, Vanherle G. Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Int Dent J 2007; 57: 300-302
  • 13 Ostlund J, Möller K, Koch G. Amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer cement in Class II restorations in primary molars--a three year clinical evaluation. Swed Dent J 1992; 16: 81-86
  • 14 Mair LH. Ten-year clinical assessment of three posterior resin composites and two amalgams. Quintessence Int 1998; 29: 483-490
  • 15 Dresch W, Volpato S, Gomes JC, Ribeiro NR, Reis A, Loguercio AD. Clinical evaluation of a nanofilled composite in posterior teeth: 12-month results. Oper Dent 2006; 31: 409-417
  • 16 Yip KH, Poon BK, Chu FC, Poon EC, Kong FY, Smales RJ. Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin-based composites for posterior restorations in permanent teeth: results at 12 months. J Am Dent Assoc 2003; 134: 1581-1589
  • 17 Letzel H. Survival rates and reasons for failure of posterior composite restorations in multicentre clinical trial. J Dent 1989; 17 Suppl 1 S10-17
  • 18 Stangel I, Barolet RY. Clinical evaluation of two posterior composite resins: two-year results. J Oral Rehabil 1990; 17: 257-268
  • 19 Opdam NJ, Roeters FJ, Feilzer AJ, Verdonschot EH. Marginal integrity and postoperative sensitivity in Class 2 resin composite restorations in vivo. J Dent 1998; 26: 555-562
  • 20 Türkün S. Clinical evaluation of a self-etching and a onebottle adhesive system at two years. J Dent 2003; 31: 527-534
  • 21 Van dijken JW. Durability of three simplified adhesive systems in Class V non-carious cervical dentin lesions. Am J Dent 2004; 17: 27-32
  • 22 Mjör IA. Frequency of secondary caries at various anatomical locations. Oper Dent 1985; 10: 88-92
  • 23 Saleh N, Peretz B, Rehany A, Zyskin D, Hirschfeld Z, Stark M. One-year clinical evaluation of an anterior composite resin. Quintessence Int 1992; 23: 559-567
  • 24 Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, Leroux BG, Rue T, Leitão J, DeRouen TA. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc 2007; 138: 775-783
  • 25 Abdalla AI, Alhadainy HA. 2-year clinical evaluation of Class I posterior composites. Am J Dent 1996; 9: 150-152
  • 26 Leinfelder KF. Posterior composite resins: the materials and their clinical performance. J Am Dent Assoc 1995; 126: 663-664, 667-668, 671-672
  • 27 Van Meerbeek B, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Evaluation of two dentin adhesives in cervical lesions. J Prosthet Dent 1993; 70: 308-314
  • 28 Närhi TO, Tanner J, Ostela I, Narva K, Nohrström T, Tirri T, Vallittu PK. Anterior Z250 resin composite restorations: one-year evaluation of clinical performance. Clin Oral Investig 2003; 7: 241-243
  • 29 Manhart J, Chen HY, Neuerer P, Thiele L, Jaensch B, Hickel R. Clinical performance of the posterior composite QuiXfil after 3, 6, and 18 months in Class 1 and 2 cavities. Quintessence Int 2008; 39: 757-765
  • 30 Ferrari M, Mannocci F, Kugel G, García-Godoy F. Standardized microscopic evaluation of the bonding mechanism of NRC/Prime & Bond NT. Am J Dent 1999; 12: 77-83
  • 31 Abdalla AI, Garcia-Godoy F. Clinical performance of a selfetch adhesive in Class V restorations made with and without acid etching. J Dent 2007; 35: 558-563
  • 32 Tay FR, Pashley DH, King NM, Carvalho RM, Tsai J, Lai SC, Marquezini Jr L. Aggressiveness of self-etch adhesives on unground enamel. Oper Dent 2004; 29: 309-316
  • 33 Loguercio AD, Reis A, Hernandez PA, Macedo RP, Busato AL. 3-Year clinical evaluation of posterior packable composite resin restorations. J Oral Rehabil 2006; 33: 144-151