Does a new formula have an input in the clinical success of posterior composite restorations? A chat study

Clinical Oral Investigations (2020Abstract

Objective

To compare the clinical behavior of a universal light-curing, ultra-fine particle hybrid composite and successor of this material in class I and II cavities after 60 months.

Materials and methods

Forty patients (21 females, 19 males) with ages ranging between 18 and 38 years (23.15 ± 5.15) received 80 (13 Cl I and 67 Cl II) resin composite restorations (Charisma/Charisma Classic, Kulzer GmbH) in combination with an etch and rinse adhesive system (Gluma 2Bond) under rubber dam isolation. Two experienced operators performed all the restorations. Restorations were evaluated by the other two examiners according to the FDI criteria at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months. Surface characteristics of one restoration selected randomly were examined under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) at each recall. Data were analyzed statistically (p < 0.05).

Results

After 60 months, recall rate was 90%. None of the restorations failed. Three restorations from Charisma and 4 from the Charisma Classic group showed minor surface staining. Twelve Charisma and 14 Charisma Classic restorations were scored as 2 for margin staining. Four restorations from both groups showed minor shade deviations but no significant difference was observed between the two restorative materials for any criteria evaluated after 60 months (p > 0.05). SEM evaluations were in accordance with the clinical findings.

Conclusions

Both materials exhibited clinically similar and successful performance over the 60-month observation period.

Clinical relevance

A new formulation of resin composite may not always perform better clinical performances.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02888873

Share this post: