ORAL HEALTH EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE PROGRAM
View the CAT printer-friendly / share this CAT
spacer
Title Similar Clinical Performance of Nanofilled, Packable, and Microhybrid Composite Resins in Class I Preparations of Molar Teeth
Clinical Question Do nanofilled and packable resin restorative materials have similar success compared to microhybrid composite using the modified Ryge criteria in Class I restorations in adults?
Clinical Bottom Line No significant difference was found between the clinical performances of the three restorative materials at 12 to 18 months.
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) 20202097M.Sadeghi,C.D Lynch, N.Shahamat/ 201035 patientsRandomized Controlled Trial
Key resultsRegardless of the type of restorative material, no significant changes were observed using the modified Ryge criteria at baseline and at the 18-month recall (P < 0.05). At 18 months, 95.4%, 93.7% and 96.2% respectively of the microhybrid ('Point 4'), packable ('Packable Premise') and nanofilled ('Nanofilled Premise') resin composite restorations received Alfa ratings.
#2) 16924980Dresch/200642 patientsRandomized Controlled Trial
Key results148 restorations were evaluated, and no statistical difference was observed between materials (p>0.05) at baseline and after 1 year.
Evidence Search Search nanofilled[Title] AND resin[Title] AND composites[Title] AND Class[Title] AND restorations[Title] Search nanofilled vs microfilled Search nanofilled composite in posterior teeth Search posterior teeth dental restorations
Comments on
The Evidence
There is a need to evaluate restorations placed over a longer time scale to determine the long-term clinical performance of these resin composite materials.
Applicability These results seem relevant to all posterior teeth in need of Class I composite restorations. No significant difference in the clinical performances of all three restorative materials tested was observed; however, there is a need to evaluate restorations placed over a longer time scale to determine the long-term clinical performance of these resin composite materials.
Specialty/Discipline (General Dentistry) (Restorative Dentistry)
Keywords Nanofilled, packable, microhybrid composite resin
ID# 851
Date of submission: 03/30/2011spacer
E-mail faltine@uthscsa.edu
Author Winston Faltine
Co-author(s)
Co-author(s) e-mail
Faculty mentor/Co-author Joseph Bartoloni, DDS
Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail Bartoloni@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
spacer
Comments on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS' and/or FACULTY COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs)
post a comment
by Lena Al-Farra, Caitlyn Luther (San Antonio) on 11/30/2017
A PubMed search was performed in November 2017. There is a newer study (de Andrade, 2014, PMID: 25084108) on this clinical question in the form of a randomized clinical trial. The study compared the success rate of nanofilled, nanohybrid, and microhybrid composites. While it found there was a significant difference in marginal adaptability of microhybrid vs. nanofilled composites, the study also concluded that there were no significant differences in the overall success rate of nanofilled vs. microhybrid resin composite restorations.
spacer

Return to Found CATs list