Clinical indication(s) / Claim(s)
Verbatim per manufacturer's Instructions-for-use (IFU) sheet
Claim 1: posterior restorations (direct)
Claim 2: Anterior restorations (direct)
Claim 3: posterior restorations (indirect)
Claim 4: Anterior restorations (indirect)
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 = 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 = 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 = 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 = 1 Criterion II = 1 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 = 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
Busato AL, Loguercio AD, Reis A, Carrilho MR. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 6-year results. Am J Dent. 2001 Oct;14(5):304-8.
van Dijken JW, Pallesen U. Long-term dentin retention of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement in non-carious cervical lesions. Dent Mater. 2008 Jul;24(7):915-22.
Palaniappan S, Bharadwaj D, Mattar DL, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P. Nanofilled and microhybrid composite restorations: Five-year clinical wear performances. Dent Mater. 2011 Jul;27(7):692-700.
McCoy RB, Anderson MH, Lepe X, Johnson GH. Clinical success of class V composite resin restorations without mechanical retention. J Am Dent Assoc. 1998 May;129(5):593-9.
ZHANG Lei,MA Xue,ZHU Xing-guo. Clinical effect of wedge-shaped defect using diferent filling materials. J Harbin Med Univ 2011; 45: 77.
Ozgünaltay G, Onen A. Three-year clinical evaluation of a resin modified glass-ionomer cement and a composite resin in non-carious class V lesions. J Oral Rehabil. 2002 Nov;29(11):1037-41.
SHEN Yi-yin,LU Qun,WEI Ben-juan. Effects of different dental filling materials in wedge-shaped defect restorations on periodontal tissues. J Shanghai Jiaotong Univ 2010; 30: 1389.
Browning WD, Brackett WW, Gilpatrick RO. Two-year clinical comparison of a microfilled and a hybrid resin-based composite in non-carious Class V lesions. Oper Dent. 2000 Jan-Feb;25(1):46-50.
McComb D, Erickson RL, Maxymiw WG, Wood RE. A clinical comparison of glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer and resin composite restorations in the treatment of cervical caries in xerostomic head and neck radiation patients. Oper Dent. 2002 Sep-Oct;27(5):430-7.
Claim 1:
Abdalla AI, Alhadainy HA. 2-year clinical evaluation of Class I posterior composites. Am J Dent. 1996 Aug;9(4):150-2.
de Medeiros F, Santos M, Araújo I, Lima I. Clinical evaluation of two materials in the restoration of abfraction lesions. Braz J Oral Sci 2015; 14: 287.
Koubi G, Colon P, Franquin JC, Hartmann A, Richard G, Faure MO, Lambert G. Clinical evaluation of the performance and safety of a new dentine substitute, Biodentine, in the restoration of posterior teeth - a prospective study. Clin Oral Investig. 2013 Jan;17(1):243-9.
Soncini JA, Maserejian NN, Trachtenberg F, Tavares M, Hayes C. The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: findings From the New England Children's Amalgam Trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007 Jun;138(6):763-72.
Türkün LS, Aktener BO, Ates M. Clinical evaluation of different posterior resin composite materials: a 7-year report. Quintessence Int. 2003 Jun;34(6):418-26.
Claim 2:
Fagundes F, Baseggio W, Bresciani E, Barata T, Franco E. Nine-year clinical evaluation of composite resins in Class III restorations. Braz Dent Sci 2015; 18: 25.
de Medeiros F, Santos M, Araújo I, Lima I. Clinical evaluation of two materials in the restoration of abfraction lesions. Braz J Oral Sci 2015; 14: 287.
GUO Cui-ping. Effect of Light Curing Composite Resin in Cosmetic Restoration of Anterior Teeth and its Effect on Gingiva. Chin J Aesthet Med 2018; 27: 105.
Närhi TO, Tanner J, Ostela I, Narva K, Nohrström T, Tirri T, Vallittu PK. Anterior Z250 resin composite restorations: one-year evaluation of clinical performance. Clin Oral Investig. 2003 Dec;7(4):241-3.
Yue Lihua, Pan Xudong, Tang, Li, Tao Chengfeng. Analysis of light-curing composite resin.The effect of cosmetic restoration of anterior teeth and its specific influence on gums. Health Everyone 2019; 4: 77.
Claims 3 and 4:
Claim 1:
Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, Leroux BG, Rue T, Leitão J, DeRouen TA. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007 Jun;138(6):775-83.
Claim 2:
Su Cunping, Deng Xuliang. Nanocomposite resin materials and light-curing composite resin materials are used in the front Comparison of the effects of cosmetic restoration. Mod J Int Chin West Med 2014; 23: 1669.
Fuks AB, Araujo FB, Osorio LB, Hadani PE, Pinto AS. Clinical and radiographic assessment of Class II esthetic restorations in primary molars. Pediatr Dent. 2000 Nov-Dec;22(6):479-85.
