Correlation Engine 2.0
Clear Search sequence regions

Sizes of these terms reflect their relevance to your search.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the 12 month clinical performances of two different posterior composites in Class I and Class II restorations. Class I and class II cavities of 62 patients, 74 Quixfil (Dentsply/ Xeno V) and 68 Gradia Direct (GC America/G bond) composite restorations were placed by two dentists. Only small and medium-sized cavities were included in the study. Independent evaluations were performed at baseline (one week), after three months, six months, and one year, by one trained examiner using the modified U.S. Public Health Service rating criteria. Color match, marginal integrity, anatomical form, surface roughness, marginal or interfacial staining, postoperative sensitivity, and secondary caries were evaluated. Both restorative materials showed only minor changes, and no differences were detected between their performance at baseline and after 12 months. Postoperative sensitivity was observed in only one Quixfil restoration. In regard to the clinical performance, there was no statistically significant difference between the materials used. Both materials showed good clinical results with dominant alpha scores at the end of 12 months.


Damla Doğan, Ertuğrul Ercan, Mehmet Mustafa Hamidi, Bahadir Uğur Aylikçi, Hakan Colak. One-year clinical evaluation of Quixfil and Gradia Direct composite restorative materials in posterior teeth. The Journal of the Michigan Dental Association. 2013 Jul;95(7):36-41, 71

Expand section icon Mesh Tags

Expand section icon Substances

PMID: 23980404

View Full Text