 |
| Title |
Z100 Is Not Superior To Any Other Composite Resin Material In Posterior Class 1 Restorations |
| Clinical Question |
In an adult dental patient in need of a Class 1 composite restoration, does Z100 as compared to other composite materials provide better marginal adaptation and wear resistance 2 years post-operative? |
| Clinical Bottom Line |
The two articles are contradictory in their conclusions. According to Abdalla, compared to other composite resin materials, Z100 provides greater anatomic form and marginal adaptation in class 1 posterior composite restorations. According to Turkun, Z100 is not necessarily superior to other resin composites but is just as suitable as others in posterior restorations. Since the Turkun study is more recent, its statements may be more valid. |
| 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) 11217593 | Turkun/2001 | 88 Class 1 and 32 Class 2 restorations | Non-randomized Clinical Comparison | | Key results | There was no evidence of secondary caries in restorations using any of the three materials upon radiographic examination (P≥.05). Relative to marginal adaptation, 11.5% of the Z100 and 16.7% of the Prisma TPH restorations showed evidence of a slight crevice along the marginal interface (P≤.05). The surfaces of all Prisma TPH restorations except one were smooth (P≥.05). | | #2) 9002789 | Abdalla/1996 | 120 Class 1 cavities | Randomized Control Trial | | Key results | Z100 was rated the best composite in all tested criteria after 1 year. Z100 had a significantly higher value than other groups in regard to anatomic form evaluation. Heliomolar RO had the lowest percentage of marginal adaptation. After 2 years, the anatomic form evaluation showed Z100 was significantly higher than those for Clearfil PP and Heliomolar RO restorations (P<0.04). For marginal adaptation, restorations with Heliomolar RO showed a significantly lower percentage of Alfa ratings than other groups (P<0.02). | |
| Evidence Search |
("Z100 composite resin" [Supplementary Concept]) AND "Heliomolar" [Supplementary Concept] |
Comments on
The Evidence |
In the Turkun study, the groups were similar at the start. One operator prepared, restored and finished 120 cavities following standard procedures and manufacturer’s directions. Groups were treated the same. The restorations were rated by blind examiners. The Abdalla study used the USPHS criteria to evaluate the restorations 1 and 2 years post-operative. Groups were similar at the start and the completion rate was greater than 80% for both the 1-year and 2-year post-operative studies. Distribution of materials and tooth location were randomized, but all other aspects of the study were the same for each patient. This study was performed in 1996 and advances in dental materials may contradict the conclusions that were made. |
| Applicability |
The Turkun study concludes that all the materials used are suitable for posterior restorations. The Abdalla article shows that Z100 is a superior composite resin material in a patient in need of a class 1 restoration. |
| Specialty/Discipline |
(General Dentistry) |
| Keywords |
Acrylic resin, Composite resin, Dentin-bonding agents, Resin cements, Dental marginal adaptation
|
| ID# |
2282 |
| Date of submission: |
04/12/2012 |
| E-mail |
desait@livemail.uthscsa.edu |
| Author |
Tina Desai |
| Co-author(s) |
|
| Co-author(s) e-mail |
|
| Faculty mentor/Co-author |
E. Penn Jackson, DDS |
| Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail |
JacksonEP@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 |
| None available | |
|
|
