View the CAT printer-friendly / share this CAT
Title Nanofilled Composite Demonstrated Less Surface Roughness Compared To Nanohybrid Composites After Clinical Use
Clinical Question In a patient needing esthetic posterior resin composite restoration, would nanofilled resin composites produce and maintain a smoother surface compared to that of nanohybrid resin composites?
Clinical Bottom Line Nanofilled and nanohybrid resin composites have no real difference in performance after 2 years except in the area of surface roughness. Initially both produce similar polish, but aftertime and brushing, nanohybrid composites demonstrated greater surface roughness compared to that of nanofilled composites.
Best Evidence (you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link)
PubMed ID Author / Year Patient Group Study type
(level of evidence)
#1) 19830969Moraes/2009N/ALab Study
Key resultsBoth nanohybrid and nanofilled resin composite presented similar polish, but nanohybrid resin composite had greater surface roughness after toothbrush abrasion compared to the results observed in nanofilled resin composites.
#2) 20888884De Andrade/ 201141 Adolescents with all 3 different compositesRandomized Clinical Trial
Key resultsThere were no differences between the composites in terms of properties initially. However, after 30 months of clinical use, nanofilled resin composite demonstrated less surface roughness compared to that of nanohybrid composite, but more marginal adaptation and discoloration.
#3) 18792703Mahmoud/200835 patients with all 4 different compositesRandomized Clinical Trial
Key resultsAt the 2 year follow-up visit, there were only minor changes detected in their performance at baseline and after 2 years, but all changes were clinically acceptable. In terms of polish, nanofilled composite presented smoother surface compared to the surface of nanohybrid resin composites.
Evidence Search Search (("Composite Resins"[Mesh]) AND "Dental Restoration, Permanent"[Mesh]) AND "Nanocomposites"[Mesh]
Comments on
The Evidence
The Moraes et. al., study was a lab study and was simulated. The sample size for each characteristic tested was only 8 conical specimens per resin composite, which is smaller than we would have liked. The evidence from the DeAndrade et al and Mahmoud were higher level of evidence compared to the Moraes et. al., study. The sample sizes for the Mahmound et. al., study was 35 patients each with all 4 types of composite resin: ormocer-based, nanohybrid, nanofill, and micro-hybrid resin composites. The DeAndrade et. al., study was a double blind study with 41 patients each having all 3 types of composite resin: nanofill, nanohybrid, and micro-hybrid resin composites. The sample sizes in both of that randomized clinical trial studies were adequate to provide pertinent conclusions.
Applicability There is evidence for choosing nanofilled composites over nanohybrid composites in terms of long-term maintenance of polish. Esthetically, the nanofilled and nanohybrid composites demonstrated similar surface roughness. However, the use of nanofilled composite technology is advantageous over nanohybrid composites in the ability to maintain its polish after brushing and clinical use.
Specialty/Discipline (Restorative Dentistry)
Keywords Nanofill, nanohybrid, roughness,abrasion
ID# 2203
Date of submission: 04/19/2012spacer
E-mail hongk3@livemail.uthscsa.edu
Author Kristy Hong
Co-author(s) e-mail
Faculty mentor/Co-author Rita Renee Parma, DDS
Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail parma@uthscsa.edu
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?)
post a rationale
None available
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
post a comment
None available

Return to Found CATs list