Clinical evaluation of the functional performance of organically modified ceramics (ormocers), nanohybrid, and microhybrid composite in permanent posterior teeth restorations.
Keywords:Ormocer, nanohybrid composite, clinical evaluation.
Background : In recent times, resin-based direct composite restorations have become a routine and well-established dental practice,
meeting the demands for aesthetics and minimally invasive restorative care. The use of resin-based composite resin for defects in
posterior teeth is on the rise. A good knowledge of adhesives, composite resins, and polymerization kinetics is required to effectively use composite in patient care.
Objective : To compare the functional clinical performance of an ormocer and a nanohybrid to that of a traditional microhybrid composite in posterior teeth restorations.
Material and Methods : Patients with at least three carious lesions which required replacement (Class Ι and/or Class ΙΙ), each with an
opposing tooth, were enrolled in this study. A total of 105 restorations were placed, 35 for each. The materials used for this study included an ormocer-based composite, a nanohybrid resin composite, and a micro-hybrid resin composite. One operator placed all the restorations according to the manufacturers’ instructions. Each restoration is finished and polished immediately after placement. The patient returned for follow-up evaluation at one(1 )month, three (3 )months,six6 months, and 12 months. Two independent examiners calibrated with the web-based training called e-calib performed the evaluation using the FDI Criteria.
Results : A total of 105 resin composite restorations, 35 restorations for each of the study materials, were placed in 35 subjects, with a
female to male ratio of 4.8:1. The subject recall rate was 100%. All ormocer, nanohybrid, and micro-hybrid resin composites restorations recorded 100% clinically excellent scores from baseline to 3 months for all parameters. Most of the study materials showed a decrease from 100% clinically excellent scores, with a few recordings clinically good at 12 months. At least one restoration of each material experienced a deterioration of the parameters, fracture, retention of materials, and proximal anatomic form.
The functional clinical performance of ormocer admira (voco), Tetric EvoCeram (Ivoclar Vivadent), a Nanohybrid, and tetric Ceram
(Excite), a micro-hybrid were satisfactory in the restorations of carious posterior permanent teeth. The majority of the restorations maintained clinically excellent scores from 1 month to 12 months. There was, however, no record of scores 3, 4, or 5 by any of the test materials throughout the study.
Conclusion : The functional clinical performance of ormocer admira (voco), Tetric EvoCeram (Ivoclar Vivadent), a Nanohybrid, and
tetric Ceram (Excite) micro-hybrid were satisfactory in the restorations of posterior permanent teeth restorations.