Durafill VS
Clinical indication(s) / Claim(s)
Verbatim per manufacturer's Instructions-for-use (IFU) sheet

IFU Link
Claim 1: For tooth fillings of cavity classes III in connection with the adhesive technique.
Claim 2: For tooth fillings of cavity classes IV in connection with the adhesive technique.
Claim 3: For tooth fillings of cavity classes V in connection with the adhesive technique.








 
 
 
 

Clinical evidence supporting the claim(s)
From full report(s) of prospective, clinical controlled trial(s)
Clinical evidence not supporting the claim(s)
From full report(s) of prospective, clinical controlled trial(s)
Clinical evidence not related to the claim(s)
From full report(s) of prospective, clinical controlled trial(s)
(c) RCHSR
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 1 Criterion II  = 0 Criterion III  = 0 / Total score = 0
Claim 1:
Loguercio AD, Lorini E, Weiss RV, Tori AP, Picinatto CC, Ribeiro NR, Reis A. A 12-month clinical evaluation of composite resins in class III restorations. J Adhes Dent. 2007 Feb;9(1):57-64.

Claim 3:
Baratieri LN, Canabarro S, Lopes GC, Ritter AV. Effect of resin viscosity and enamel beveling on the clinical performance of Class V composite restorations: three-year results. Oper Dent. 2003 Sep-Oct;28(5):482-7.

Claim 2:
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 1 Criterion II  = 0 Criterion III  = 0 / Total score = 0
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 1 Criterion II  = 0 Criterion III  = 0 / Total score = 0
Santos VR, Lucchesi JA, Cortelli SC, Amaral CM, Feres M, Duarte PM. Effects of glass ionomer and microfilled composite subgingival restorations on periodontal tissue and subgingival biofilm: a 6-month evaluation. J Periodontol. 2007 Aug;78(8):1522-8.