Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of Concept indirect posterior heat- and pressure-polymerized restorative material and compare it to the performance of cast gold. Method and materials: Inlays and onlays placed in a standardized manner as part of a clinical study were evaluated at 7 years. Eighteen patients (45%) who had received 36 Concept restorations returned and were evaluated using the US Public Health Service criteria. Restorations were evaluated in seven categories as the percentage receiving Alfa (ideal), Bravo (clinically acceptable), or Charlie (clinically unacceptable) scores or as restoration no longer present. Fourteen of the restorations were cemented with Heliobond bonding resin and 13 were cemented with Special Bond bonding resin. Each patient also received a cast-gold restoration for comparison. Results: Concept restorations received scores of Alfa at the following rates: color match, 64%; interfacial staining, 47%; secondary caries, 75%; wear, 58%; marginal integrity, 64%; surface texture, 72%; and axial contour, 58% (in 14% this category was not applicable because they were Class I restorations). Nine Concept restorations (25%) were no longer present. Fifteen of 18 gold restorations were present at this recall. Statistical analysis indicated no significant differences in any categories between the two bonding resins used with Concept restorative material and the gold restorations. Conclusion: At 7years in vivo, the Concept indirect posterior restorative system yields clinically acceptable restorations, particularly in premolars.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 163-168 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | Quintessence International |
| Volume | 30 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| State | Published - Mar 1999 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Cast-gold restoration
- Clinical evaluation
- Inlay
- Onlay
- Posterior restoration
- Resin composite restoration
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Dentistry(all)
Cite this
A clinical comparison of resin composite inlay and onlay posterior restorations and cast-gold restorations at 7 years. / Donly, Kevin J; Jensen, Mark E.; Triolo, Peter; Chan, Daniel.
In: Quintessence International, Vol. 30, No. 3, 03.1999, p. 163-168.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - A clinical comparison of resin composite inlay and onlay posterior restorations and cast-gold restorations at 7 years
AU - Donly, Kevin J
AU - Jensen, Mark E.
AU - Triolo, Peter
AU - Chan, Daniel
PY - 1999/3
Y1 - 1999/3
N2 - Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of Concept indirect posterior heat- and pressure-polymerized restorative material and compare it to the performance of cast gold. Method and materials: Inlays and onlays placed in a standardized manner as part of a clinical study were evaluated at 7 years. Eighteen patients (45%) who had received 36 Concept restorations returned and were evaluated using the US Public Health Service criteria. Restorations were evaluated in seven categories as the percentage receiving Alfa (ideal), Bravo (clinically acceptable), or Charlie (clinically unacceptable) scores or as restoration no longer present. Fourteen of the restorations were cemented with Heliobond bonding resin and 13 were cemented with Special Bond bonding resin. Each patient also received a cast-gold restoration for comparison. Results: Concept restorations received scores of Alfa at the following rates: color match, 64%; interfacial staining, 47%; secondary caries, 75%; wear, 58%; marginal integrity, 64%; surface texture, 72%; and axial contour, 58% (in 14% this category was not applicable because they were Class I restorations). Nine Concept restorations (25%) were no longer present. Fifteen of 18 gold restorations were present at this recall. Statistical analysis indicated no significant differences in any categories between the two bonding resins used with Concept restorative material and the gold restorations. Conclusion: At 7years in vivo, the Concept indirect posterior restorative system yields clinically acceptable restorations, particularly in premolars.
AB - Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of Concept indirect posterior heat- and pressure-polymerized restorative material and compare it to the performance of cast gold. Method and materials: Inlays and onlays placed in a standardized manner as part of a clinical study were evaluated at 7 years. Eighteen patients (45%) who had received 36 Concept restorations returned and were evaluated using the US Public Health Service criteria. Restorations were evaluated in seven categories as the percentage receiving Alfa (ideal), Bravo (clinically acceptable), or Charlie (clinically unacceptable) scores or as restoration no longer present. Fourteen of the restorations were cemented with Heliobond bonding resin and 13 were cemented with Special Bond bonding resin. Each patient also received a cast-gold restoration for comparison. Results: Concept restorations received scores of Alfa at the following rates: color match, 64%; interfacial staining, 47%; secondary caries, 75%; wear, 58%; marginal integrity, 64%; surface texture, 72%; and axial contour, 58% (in 14% this category was not applicable because they were Class I restorations). Nine Concept restorations (25%) were no longer present. Fifteen of 18 gold restorations were present at this recall. Statistical analysis indicated no significant differences in any categories between the two bonding resins used with Concept restorative material and the gold restorations. Conclusion: At 7years in vivo, the Concept indirect posterior restorative system yields clinically acceptable restorations, particularly in premolars.
KW - Cast-gold restoration
KW - Clinical evaluation
KW - Inlay
KW - Onlay
KW - Posterior restoration
KW - Resin composite restoration
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033087822&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033087822&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
C2 - 10356568
AN - SCOPUS:0033087822
VL - 30
SP - 163
EP - 168
JO - Quintessence international (Berlin, Germany : 1985)
JF - Quintessence international (Berlin, Germany : 1985)
SN - 0033-6572
IS - 3
ER -