SUMMARY

Objective:

To evaluate the clinical performance of a glass hybrid restorative compared with a resin composite in the restoration of large and deep Class II cavities after 24 months.

Methods and Materials:

A total of 108 extended size, with the width of the proximal box not interfering with the peak of the cusps and the proximal box in occlusion, Class II lesions in 37 patients were either restored with a glass hybrid restorative or with a micro-hybrid composite resin in combination with selective etching by two experienced operators according to the manufacturer's instructions. Two independent examiners evaluated the restorations at baseline and at the six-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month recalls according to the modified US Public Health Service criteria. Negative replicas at each recall were observed under scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to examine surface characteristics. Data were analyzed statistically.

Results:

After 24 months, 90 restorations were evaluated in 32 patients (recall rate: 86.5%). Four glass hybrid restorations were missing; three were due to bulk and one was due to proximal fracture at 12 months. Only six restorations were scored as bravo at baseline and at the six-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month recalls for color (p<0.05). No significant differences were observed between the two restorative materials for the other criteria evaluated (p>0.05). SEM observations exhibited acceptable surface and marginal adaptation characteristics for both restorative materials at 24 months.

Conclusions:

Although glass hybrid restorations showed significant mismatch in color, both restorative materials exhibited successful performance for the restoration of large Class II cavities after 24 months.

You do not currently have access to this content.