 |
| Title |
Wear Resistance of Filtek Supreme Versus Z100 |
| Clinical Question |
In a patient in need of a posterior composite restoration, do nanocomposites have poorer wear resistance than hybrid composites? |
| Clinical Bottom Line |
Filtek Supreme appeared to be more polishable than Z100, however; there were no significant differences between the groups when other criteria such as wear were studied. (See Comments on the CAT below) |
| 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) 19577288 | Palaniappan/2009 | 16 dental students with good oral hygiene and 37 teeth in need of restorations | Randomized (Split Mouth) Trial | | Key results | After 3 years Filtek Supreme showed no significant difference to Z100 in secondary caries, color match, retention, surface staining, soft tissue health, post-operative sensitivity, occlusal wear, and proximal contact. Filtek Supreme maintained a less irregular surface that than Z100 at light occlusal contact areas after 36 months of clinical service, and appeared to be more polishable. | |
| Evidence Search |
Randomized Controlled Trial, English "Dental Restoration Wear"[Mesh] Limits: Randomized Controlled Trial, English"Dental Restoration Wear"[Mesh] "Nanocomposites"[Mesh] |
Comments on
The Evidence |
A randomized control (split mouth) trial was performed on dental students who all practiced good oral hygiene. All groups were treated the same with adequate follow-ups performed in a double-blind fashion by examiners with no competing interests. Compliance was 100% with no recall bias, but the sample size was small. |
| Applicability |
Recognizing the similar wear resistance but the superior polishability of Filtek Supreme in patients practicing good oral hygiene can help clinicians confidently place Filtek Supreme instead of Z100 when a more highly polishable restoration is desired. More studies need to be done to verify the applicability in patients with poor oral hygiene. |
| Specialty/Discipline |
(Restorative Dentistry) |
| Keywords |
"Nanocomposites/chemistry" [MESH], "Dental Restoration Wear" [MESH]
|
| ID# |
537 |
| Date of submission: |
03/26/2010 |
| E-mail |
williamsan@uthscsa.edu |
| Author |
Amy Williams |
| Co-author(s) |
|
| 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
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS', FACULTY, RESIDENTS and/or STUDENTS COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs) |
post a comment |
by Hoang Doan (San Antonio, TX) on 05/06/2012
Based on my search for this CAT, there is a more updated article. The author of the original article has updated their research to now a 5 year clinical wear performance, which was published in 2011. Results of the research states that rate of vertical and volume loss of both restoration is average but wear can be influenced by clinical variables. The PMID number is 21529923 | |
|
|
