Clinical performance of ormocer, nanofilled, and nanoceramic resin composites in Class I and Class II restorations: a three-year evaluation. A prospective randomized clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: Five-year results. A prospective randomised clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: three-year results. Four-year clinical evaluation of Class II nano-hybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch and a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive. A six-year prospective randomized study of a nano-hybrid and a conventional hybrid resin composite in Class II restorations. Randomized controlled trial of the 2-year clinical performance of a silorane-based resin composite in class 1 posterior restorations. Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer, nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorative systems in posterior teeth. Esthetic outcomes with porcelain-fused-to-ceramic and all-ceramic single-implant crowns: a randomized clinical trial. Ormocer: An aesthetic direct restorative material; An in vitro study comparing the marginal sealing ability of organically modified ceramics and a hybrid composite using an ormocer-based bonding agent and a conventional fifth-generation bonding agent Two-year clinical evaluation of packable and nanostructured resin-based composites placed with two techniques. A five year study of the clinical performance of a posterior composite resin restorative material. Long-term clinical, technical, and esthetic outcomes of all-ceramic vs. titanium abutments on implant supporting single-tooth reconstructions after at least 5 years. The clinical performance of a posterior composite resin restorative material, Heliomolar R.O.: 3-year report. Comparative reliability analyses of zirconium oxide and lithium disilicate restorations in vitro and in vivo. A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial of one nano-hybrid and one high-viscosity bulk-fill composite restorative systems in class II cavities: 12 months results Three-year clinical evaluation of CAD/CAM restorations. The use of Ormocer as an alternative material for bonding orthodontic brackets.
PURPOSE This prospect i ve long-term clinical trial evaluated and compared the three-year clinical performance of an ormocer , a nanofilled , and a nanoceramic resin composite with that of a microhybrid composite placed in Class I and Class II cavities . METHODS Forty patients , each with four Class I and II restorations under occlusion , were enrolled in this study . A total of 160 restorations were placed , 25 % for each material , as follows : an ormocer-based composite , Admira ; a nanofilled resin composite , Filtek Supreme XT ; a nanoceramic resin composite , Ceram X ; and a microhybrid resin composite , Tetric Ceram . A single operator placed all restorations according to the manufacturers ' instructions . Immediately after placement the restorations were finished/polished . Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and at yearly intervals after placement by two other independent examiners using modified US Public Health Service ( USPHS ) criteria . The changes in the USPHS parameters during the three-year period were analyzed with the Friedman test . Comparison of the baseline scores with those at the recall visits was made using the Wilcoxon signed rank test . The level of significance was set at p < 0.05 . RESULTS All material s showed only minor changes , and no differences were detected between their performance at baseline and after three years . Only two ormocer , one nanofilled , and one microhybrid restorations in molars failed because of loss of retention . Regarding the clinical performance , there were no statistically significant differences among the material s used ( p>0.05 ) . CONCLUSIONS The ormocer , nanofilled , and nanoceramic composites provided acceptable clinical performance over a three-year period OBJECTIVES Ormocer composites , consisting of a silicon-based polymer , have been developed recently as a tooth-colored restorative material . The purpose of this prospect i ve r and omized clinical trial was to evaluate the performance of two small-particle hybrid ormocer-based restorative systems ( AD , Admira/Admira Bond , VOCO ; DE , Definite/Etch & Prime 3.0 , Dentsply ) and one small-particle hybrid bis-GMA-based composite restorative system ( TC , Tetric-Ceram/Syntac , Ivoclar-Vivadent ) in class II cavities . METHODS From 128 occlusal-proximal restorations ( 44 AD , 43 DE and 41 TC ) placed in 32 adult patients , eventually 77 ( 22 AD , 29 DE and 26 TC ) remained available for evaluation after 5 years . Their clinical performance was scored according to the USPHS criteria and evaluation of bite-wing radiographs . RESULTS After 5 years , eight AD , six DE and seven TC restorations had failed ( p=0.10 , log-rank test ) . The main reason was fracture or marginal gap formation , while secondary caries accounted for four failures . In all restorations the quality of surface , margins and contact point decreased significantly compared to baseline . DE had a significant poorer color match ( p<0.01 ) . Statistical evaluation using the KW test showed that failures were concentrated on specific patients . CONCLUSIONS In a group of class II restorations , there was no significant difference in failures after 5 years between ormocer-based and bis-GMA-based restorative systems OBJECTIVES Ormocer composites , consisting of a silicon-based polymer , have been developed recently as a tooth-coloured restorative material . The purpose of this prospect i ve r and omised clinical trial was to evaluate the performance of two small-particle hybrid ormocer-based restorative systems ( AD , Admira/Admira Bond , VOCO ; DE , Definite/Etch & Prime 3.0 , Dentsply ) and one small-particle hybrid bis-GMA-based composite restorative system ( TC , Tetric-Ceram/Syntac , Ivoclar-Vivadent ) in occlusal stress-bearing restorations . METHODS One hundred and twenty-eight occlusal-proximal restorations ( 44 AD , 43 DE and 41 TC ) were placed according to the manufacturer 's instructions in thirty-two adult patients . Their clinical performance was scored according to the USPHS criteria and evaluation of bite-wing radiographs . RESULTS After 3 years , four AD , five DE and four TC restorations had failed due to fracture or marginal gap formation . Surface roughness improved significantly when compared to the baseline in AD and TC ( Friedman test , p<0.05 ) during the first year but returned to baseline values after 3 years . DE had a significant tendency towards discolouration ( p<0.05 ) . Bite-wing radiographs showed two AD and one TC restorations with internal porosities . ANOVA showed that larger restorations ( > or = 3 surfaces ) showed significantly more degradation than smaller ones . CONCLUSIONS In a group of class II restorations , there was no significant difference in failures after 3 years between ormocer-based and bis-GMA-based restorative systems OBJECTIVE The objective of this prospect i ve clinical trial was to evaluate the 4-year clinical performance of an ormocer-based nano-hybrid resin composite ( Ceram X ; Dentsply/DeTrey ) in Class II restorations placed with a one-step self-etch ( Xeno III ; Dentsply/DeTrey ) and two-step etch- and -rinse adhesive ( Ivoclar Vivadent ) . METHODS Seventy-eight participants received at r and om at least two , as similar as possible , Class II restorations of the nano-hybrid resin composite bonded with either a single step self-etch adhesive or a control 2-step etch- and -rinse adhesive . The 165 restorations were evaluated using slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and then yearly during 4 years . RESULTS 162 restorations were evaluated at 4 years . Postoperative sensitivity was observed in 6 patients ( 3 Xeno III , 3 Exite ) between 1 and 3 weeks . Eleven failed restorations ( 6.8 % ) were observed during the follow up . Seven in the one-step self-etch adhesive group ( 7.7 % ) and four in the 2-step etch- and -rinse group ( 5.6 % ) . This result ed in non-significant different annual failure rates of 1.9 % and 1.4 % , respectively . Fracture of restoration was the main reason for failure . CONCLUSION The ormocer-based nano-hybrid resin composite showed a good clinical performance in Class II cavities during the 4 year evaluation . No significant difference was seen in overall clinical effectiveness between the two adhesives OBJECTIVE The objective of this 6 year prospect i ve r and omized equivalence trial was to evaluate the long-term clinical performance of a new nano-hybrid resin composite ( RC ) in Class II restorations in an intraindividual comparison with its well-established conventional hybrid RC predecessor . METHODS Each of 52 participants received at least two , as similar as possible , Class II restorations .  The cavities were chosen at r and om to be restored with an experimental nano-hybrid RC ( Exite/Tetric EvoCeram ( TEC ) ; n=61 ) and a conventional hybrid RC ( Exite/Tetric Ceram ( TC ) ; n=61 ) . The restorations were evaluated with slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and then annually during 6 years . RESULTS Two patient drop outs with 4 restorations ( 2TEC , 2TC ) were registered during the follow-up . A prediction of the caries risk showed that 16 of the evaluated 52 patients were considered as high risk patients . Eight TEC ( 2 P , 6 M ) and 6 TC ( 2P , 4 M ) restorations failed during the 6 years . The main reason of failure was secondary caries ( 43 % ; including the failure fracture+ secondary caries it increases to 57.1 % ) . 63 % of the recurrent caries lesions were found in high caries risk participants . The overall success rate at six years was 88.1 % . No statistical significant difference was found in the overall survival rate between the two investigated RC . SIGNIFICANCE The nano-hybrid RC showed good clinical performance during the 6 year evaluation , comparable to the well-established conventional hybrid RC PURPOSE To compare the 2-year clinical performance of a silorane-based resin composite with that of an established nanoceramic resin composite for class 1 posterior restorations . METHODS In this r and omized controlled study , 100 class 1 molar cavities were prepared in 50 subjects . Each subject received a restoration with Filtek Silorane and Ceram . X Duo in different quadrants . The restorations were evaluated using the modified USPHS criteria at baseline and 6 , 12 , and 24 months . Parametric changes over the 2-year period were assessed with the Friedman test . The baseline and recall scores were compared by using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test ( P < 0.05 ) . RESULTS No subject developed secondary caries or postoperative sensitivity . Further , the resin composites showed no significant differences in all the evaluated parameters over 2 years ( P > 0.05 ) . At 2 years , four Filtek Silorane and seven Ceram . X Duo restorations had Bravo scores for anatomic form , marginal adaptation , and surface texture ( P < 0.05 ) ; however , these changes were mainly the effect of scoring shifts from Alfa to Bravo . Overall , both material s showed good clinical results with predominantly Alfa scores PURPOSE To evaluate and compare the 2-year clinical performance of an ormocer , a nanohybrid , and a nanofill resin composite with that of a microhybrid composite in restorations of small occlusal cavities made in posterior teeth . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Thirty-five patients , each with 4 occlusal restorations under occlusion , were enrolled in this study . A total of 140 restorations  was placed , 25 % for each material : an ormocer-based composite , Admira ; a nanohybrid resin composite , Tetric EvoCeram ; a nanofill resin composite , Filtek Supreme ; and a microhybrid resin composite , Tetric Ceram . Two operators placed all restorations according to the manufacturers ' instructions . One week after placement , the restorations were finished/polished and patients were advised to return for follow-up at 6 months , 1 year , and 2 years . All patients attended the 2-year visit where the clinical performance of all restorations was evaluated . Two independent examiners made all evaluations according to the USPHS modified Ryge criteria immediately after placement of restorations and at subsequent recall visits . The changes in the USPHS parameters during the 2-year period were analyzed with the Friedman test . Comparison of the baseline scores with those at the recall visits was made using the Wilcoxon signed rank test . The level of significance was set at p < 0.05 . RESULTS All material s showed only minor changes , and no differences were detected between their performance at baseline and after 2 years . Only one  ormocer and one  microhybrid composite restoration had failed after 2 years . No failure was detected in nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorations . Regarding the clinical performance , there were no statistically significant differences among the material s used ( p > 0.05 ) . CONCLUSION After 2 years , the ormocer , nanohybrid , and nanofill composites showed acceptable clinical performance similar to that of the microhybrid resin composite OBJECTIVES the aim of this r and omized-controlled clinical trial was to compare the objective and subjective esthetic outcomes of two types of  screwed-retained single-implant crowns .  MATERIAL S AND METHODS participants were r and omly assigned to the test ( all-ceramic ) and control [ porcelain-fused-to-ceramic ( PFM ) ] groups and were seen under investigation at baseline ( B ) , crown insertion ( CI ) , 1-year follow-up ( 1Y ) , and 2-year follow-up ( 2Y ) . Objective parameters were assessed by an intra-oral digital photograph ( 1:1 ratio ) , a study cast , a st and ardized radiograph , periodontal/peri-implant measurements , and question naires were obtained for the subjective parameters . In addition , pink esthetic score ( PES ) and white esthetic score ( WES ) were calculated for both groups . For the subjective evaluation , a visual analogue scale ( VAS ) question naire was used to assess the level of patient satisfaction regarding the esthetic outcome . Then , nine expert clinicians visually inspected and assessed subjective evaluation at the professional level . Statistical analysis was used to compare between groups and investigational appointments . RESULTS twenty patients were included in the study , 10 allocated to the all-ceramic group and 10 to the PFM group . No statistically significant differences were observed for the objective measurements comparing the test and control groups . Minor chipping of the ceramic veneering material was observed in the two patients of control group . The mean difference for all groups comparing objective parameters revealed an increase of papilla height between time points . A slight recession ( 0.26 mm ) of the peri-implant mucosal margin at the implant site was observed between 1Y and 2Y . Mean values for PES and WES were 13.9 and 13.1 for the PFM group and for the all-ceramic group , respectively . These values were not statistically significant . Implant crown volume , outline , translucency , and characterization showed major discrepancies with the contra-lateral natural teeth . As for subjective parameters , VAS patients ' responses regarding their perceptions of the esthetic outcome showed no statistical differences between groups and clinicians ' accuracy scores were 50 % and 47 % for PFM and all-ceramic crowns , respectively . CONCLUSION PFM and all-ceramic single-implant restorations may be indistinguishable from each other regarding the objective /subjective assessment of esthetic integration . The material chosen for fabricating an implant crown per se does not ensure an optimal esthetic outcome if other esthetic parameters are not present Aims and Objectives : To compare the marginal sealing ability of ormocer with a hybrid composite using an ormocer based bonding agent and a conventional fifth generation bonding agent . Material s and Methods : Fifty four human premolars were r and omly distributed into four test groups of 12 teeth each and two control groups of 3 teeth each . Class I occlusal preparation of 1.5 mm depth were made in each tooth . These were restored using the adhesive and restorative material according to the group . The restorations were finished using a st and ard composite finishing and polishing kit . Thermocycling between 5 ° C and 55 ° C was carried out . Having blocked the root apex and the entire tooth surface except 1 mm around the restoration margin , the teeth were immersed in 2 % methylene blue for 48 hours , after which the dye penetration through the margins of each sample was studied under a stereomicroscope . Results and Discussion : Group IV ( Admira with Admira Bond ) showed the minimum marginal leakage with a mean of 0.200 mm . Four sample s in this group showed no microleakage at all and a maximum of 0.400 mm was seen in one sample . Group II ( Spectrum TPH with Admira Bond ) showed the maximum leakage with a mean of 0.433 mm . One sample showed as much as 1.00 mm of microleakage .  Admira when used with Admira Bond showed lesser microleakage than Spectrum TPH used with Prime & Bond NT , the difference being statistically insignificant BACKGROUND The authors conducted a two-year clinical trial to evaluate the effectiveness of two resin-based composite material s for Class II restorations placed according to two filling techniques . METHODS Twenty-six patients received 105 Class II restorations , which the authors distributed r and omly into three groups of 35 each . The resin-based composite restorations in group A were composed of average-density material ( Ceram X mono [ CXM ] , Dentsply DeTrey , Konstanz , Germany ) placed according to the oblique incremental technique ( OIT ) . Restorations in group B were composed of average- and high-density material s ( CXM and SureFil [ SF ] , Dentsply DeTrey ) placed according to the modified incremental technique ( MIT ) . Restorations in group C were composed of the high-density material ( SF ) placed with the OIT . The authors evaluated the restorations according to modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria . RESULTS At the two-year recall visit , 92 ( 88 percent ) of 105 restorations were available for examination . Restorations in groups A , B and C had success rates of 96.7 percent ( 29 of 30 restorations ) , 96.8 percent ( 30 of 31 ) and 100 percent ( 31 of 31 ) , respectively . Esthetic parameters revealed significant ( P<.05 ) cavo-surface marginal discoloration in group B and a rougher surface in group A. With regard to functional parameters , one ( 3.3 percent ) of 30 restorations in group A exhibited reparable changes in marginal integrity . CONCLUSIONS Restorations in group B performed worse ( P<.05 ) in terms of esthetic ( cavosurface marginal discoloration ) and functional ( marginal integrity ) parameters . Clinical effectiveness was highest in group C and lowest in group B. CLINICAL IMPLICATION S The two resin-based composite material s are effective in Class II clinical situations when placed with either the OIT or MIT Five-year results from four centres of the multicentre clinical trial of the posterior composite Occlusin are reported . Data is presented in respect of 256 restorations of Occlusin and 69 restorations of a conventional lathe cut amalgam .  It is concluded that more than 90 per cent of the restorations under investigation should be rated as clinical ly acceptable after five years in clinical service , that the wear resistance of the restorations of Occlusin , as assessed by the clinicians , was similar in preparations of different sizes and to that of the amalgam controls , and that similar clinical results were obtained irrespective of the technique used to achieve moisture isolation AIM The aim of this prospect i ve cohort study was to evaluate clinical , radiographic , technical , esthetic , and patient-centered outcomes of implants using two different restoration material s after 5 - 9 years . MATERIAL S AND METHODS The study included 28 patients ( test group : 13 patients with all-ceramic crowns on aluminum oxide-based abutments ; control group : 15 patients with metal abutments on porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns ) . Evaluation of patient satisfaction , clinical ( periodontal probing depth , bleeding on probing , plaque index , mucosal recession , and width of keratinized mucosa ) , esthetical ( papilla index , clinical crown length ) , technical ( loss of retention , marginal adaptation , chipping of ceramic , anatomical shape , occlusal wear , color match ) , and radiological parameters were assessed . The statistical analyses included comparison of all-ceramic vs. metal abutments and between the groups using Mann-Whitney U-tests . For esthetic parameters , changes over time were assessed using Friedman test and post hoc Wilcoxon test of all complete cases . RESULTS The survival rate of the restoration was 100 % in both groups . Patient 's satisfaction revealed 9.7 on the visual analog scale . A low satisfaction correlated with low ratings in color or anatomical shape . The mucosal recession in the test group was less than that in the control group . An increase in distal papilla height in the year 0 to 1 , and a decrease from year 1 to 8 , was detected . Sites , which received a soft tissue graft , revealed stable papillae over the observation period . Clinical crown length showed higher values in the control group . CONCLUSIONS Within the limitations of the study , it can be concluded that all-ceramic restorations reveal a high survival rate of 100 % and show no difference to metal after a mean observation period of 7.2 years A  posterior composite resin restorative material  was evaluated over a 3-year period by means of a controlled clinical trial . A total of 52 composite resin restorations and 52 amalgam alloy restorations were included in this trial , and were examined with regard to marginal integrity , surface texture , anatomical form and proximal contact with adjacent teeth . There were no significant differences in clinical performance between test and control material s , which both gave good service over the period of evaluation . Only five restorations ( one of amalgam and four of composite resin )  failed during the trial . Plastic replica dies were used to support the clinical examinations of the restorations , and such dies were found to be helpful BACKGROUND The authors analyzed the in vitro and in vivo performance of  lithium disilicate glass-ceramic ( LDGC ) restorations and yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystalline ( Y-TZP ) ( that is , zirconium oxide ) restorations  with regard to reliability , clinical performance and abrasion resistance . METHODS In the in vitro study , four authors subjected sample s of LDGC , Y-TZP and metal-ceramic crowns to step-stress fatigue testing . Four investigators assessed the in vivo clinical performance of LDGC and zirconium oxide-based restorations at four and seven years , respectively . In addition , one author conducted a r and omized , controlled clinical trial to analyze the volumetric loss of enamel and ceramic antagonist surfaces . RESULTS The LDGC crowns exhibited the highest fatigue load-to-failure values in the in vitro analysis . The results of the in vivo assessment showed that the clinical performance of the LDGC restorations at four years was comparable to that of the zirconium oxide-based crowns at seven years . The results of the in vivo , r and omized , controlled clinical trial showed that LDGC crowns were not only resistant to wear , but also were wear friendly to enamel antagonist surfaces . CONCLUSIONS The LDGC crowns in the in vitro and in vivo studies exhibited high durability , and they were wear friendly to opposing natural dentition . CLINICAL IMPLICATION S LDGC and zirconium oxide-based crowns are a clinical ly acceptable means of treating teeth that require full-coverage restorations . In addition , LDGC material s exhibit excellent clinical performance , as well as demonstrate acceptable abrasion compatibility with the opposing natural dentition Background : Recently , manufacturers have introduced bulk-fill composite resins that reportedly can be placed in increments of 4 mm or greater . Objective : The purpose of this article was to report the results of 12 months prospect i ve r and omized clinical trial that evaluated the clinical performance of one high-viscosity bulk-fill composite resin in Class II cavities of posterior teeth . Material s and Methods : Thirty-four participants had at least two Class II cavities included the study . Class II cavities restored with either a Tetric EvoCeram bulk-fi fill or universal nano-hybrid resin composite ( Tetric EvoCeram ) . A total of 74 restorations ( 37 with each material ) on 34 patients were placed according to the manufacturers ' instructions by one calibrated operator . Results : Seventy restorations were evaluated after 12 months evaluation period . No postoperative sensitivity , anatomic form , retention , and secondary caries were observed after 6 and 12 months . Regarding the items color match , marginal discoloration , and marginal adaptation , the statistical analysis did not detect any statistical significance between two material s ( P > 0.05 ) . Conclusion : After 12 months of clinical service , all restorations evaluated for both material s were classified as ideal , receiving predominantly Alfa scores for all parameters analyzed . Clinical Relevance : This study presents that high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composites ( RCs ) perform just as well as nano-hybrid RCs with the 2 mm RC layering technique , therefore could be alternative to conventional nano-hybrid RCs This study dealt with the clinical evaluation of 121 inlays and onlays generated from both Dicor ceramics and Vita porcelains .  These two different types of ceramic material s were cemented using three different duo-cured composite resin luting agents , which differed in particle size . At the end of 3 years , no difference could be detected between the clinical performance of the  Dicor  and Vita restorations . Both exhibited the same degree of color matching characteristics , marginal integrity , and general clinical performance ; however , seven of the restorations exhibited fracture through the isthmus , which was shown to be due to insufficient cavity depth . The balance of the restorations exhibited excellent clinical performance when evaluated against the United States Public Health Service System As new adhesives , composite resins , and bonding techniques were introduced , orthodontists adopted some of these innovations and added them to their armamentarium . The purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strength ( SBS ) of two adhesive material s ; one with an organically modified ceramic matrix , Admira ( Voco , Cuxhaven , Germany ) and another that contains the traditional Bis GMA matrix namely Transbond XT ( 3 M Unitek , Monrovia , Calif ) . The new material s have a lower wear rate and are more biocompatible than traditional composites . Forty molar teeth were r and omly divided into two groups : 20 teeth bonded with the Transbond adhesive system  and the other 20 teeth with the Admira bonding system .  Student 's t-test was used to compare the SBS of the two adhesives . Significance was predetermined at P < or = .05 . The results of the t-test comparisons ( t = 0.489 ) of the SBS indicated that there was no significant ( P = .628 ) difference between the two adhesives tested . The mean SBS for Admira was 5.1 + /- 3.3 MPa and that for Transbond XT was 4.6 + /- 3.2 MPa . It was concluded that the new material , Ormocer , which is an organically modified ceramic restorative material can potentially have orthodontic applications if available in a more flowable paste . These new material s are more biocompatible and have lower wear rate including bonding orthodontic brackets to teeth
SIGNIFICANCE This study did not identify clear advantages of using the first generation of ormocer-based fillings rather than conventional composites .
OBJECTIVES In-vitro experiments on  ormocers ( ORganically MOdified CERamics )  have provided controversial results .
Consequently , the objectives of this meta- analysis were to ( 1 ) compare clinical performances of first generation ormocers versus conventional composite restorations  , ( 2 ) explore the influence of various clinical factors and the impact of the quality of studies on published results .