Clinical indication(s) / Claim(s)
Verbatim per manufacturer's Instructions-for-use (IFU) sheet
Claim 1: Restoration of deciduous teeth
Claim 2: Restorations in the posterior region (Class I)
Claim 3: Restorations in the posterior region (Class II)
Claim 4: Anterior restorations (Class III)
Claim 5: Anterior restorations (Class IV)
Claim 6: Class V restorations (cervical caries, root erosion, wedge-shaped defects)
Claim 7: Veneering of discoloured anterior teeth
Claim 8: Splinting of mobile teeth
Claim 9: Extended fissure sealing in molars and premolars
Claim 10: Repair of composite/ceramic veneers
Claim 11: Build-ups for transparent, removable, Invisalign orthodontic retainers
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)
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 0 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
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 0 Criterion II = 0 Criterion III = 0 / Total score = 0
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 0 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
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
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 1 Criterion II = 1 Criterion III = 0 / Total score = 0
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 0 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
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
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
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
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
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
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 = 1 / Total score = 0
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 0 Criterion II = 0 Criterion III = 0 / Total score = 0
Palaniappan S, Elsen L, Lijnen I, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P. Nanohybrid and microfilled hybrid versus conventional hybrid composite restorations: 5-year clinical wear performance. Clin Oral Investig. 2012 Feb;16(1):181-90.
Cetin AR, Unlu N. One-year clinical evaluation of direct nanofilled and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth. Dent Mater J. 2009 Sep;28(5):620-6.
Cetin AR, Unlu N, Cobanoglu N. A five-year clinical evaluation of direct nanofilled and indirect composite resin restorations in posterior teeth. Oper Dent. 2013 Mar-Apr;38(2):E1-11.
Boeckler A, Schaller HG, Gernhardt CR. A prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial of a one-step, self-etch adhesive with and without an intermediary layer of a flowable composite: a 2-year evaluation. Quintessence Int. 2012 Apr;43(4):279-86.
Claim 2:
AL-Ghada A, Abdullah A.Clinical comparative study of post-operative sensitivity between giomer, Nano hybrid composite, Compomer and RMGIC.Int J Appl Dent Sci 2020; 6: 712-730.
Mahmoud SH, El-Embaby AE, AbdAllah AM, Hamama HH. Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer, nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorative systems in posterior teeth. J Adhes Dent. 2008 Aug;10(4):315-22.
Attia RM, Etman WM, Genaid TM. One year clinical follow up of a silorane-based versus a methacrylate-based composite resin. Tanta Dent J 2014; 11: 12.
El-Eraky M, Abdel-Fattah W, El-Said M. Clinical assessment of a nanohybrid and silorane low shrinkage composite in class I cavity preparation (preliminary report). Tanta Dent J 2014; 11: 130.
Claim 3:
van Dijken JW, Pallesen U. A randomized 10-year prospective follow-up of Class II nanohybrid and conventional hybrid resin composite restorations. J Adhes Dent. 2014 Dec;16(6):585-92.
Miletic I, Baraba A, Basso M, Pulcini MG, Markovic D, Peric T, Ozkaya CA, Turkun LS. Clinical Performance of a Glass-Hybrid System Compared with a Resin Composite in the Posterior Region: Results of a 2-year Multicenter Study. J Adhes Dent. 2020;22(3):235-247.
Walter R, Boushell LW, Heymann HO, Ritter AV, Sturdevant JR, Wilder AD Jr, Chung Y, Swift EJ Jr. Three-year clinical evaluation of a silorane composite resin. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2014 May-Jun;26(3):179-90.
Afifi SMH, Haridy MF, Farid MR. Evaluation of Post-Operative Sensitivity of Bulk Fill Resin Composite versus Nano Resin Composite: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Study. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2019 Jul 26;7(14):2335-2342.
Claim 5:
Stojanac IL, Premovic MT, Ramic BD, Drobac MR, Stojsin IM, Petrovic LM. Noncarious cervical lesions restored with three different tooth-colored materials: two-year results. Oper Dent. 2013 Jan-Feb;38(1):12-20.
Claims 1, 4, 6 - 11:
