Abstract
An in vivo comparison was made of three different types of restorative resins: a conventional composite resin, a chemically cured microfilled resin, and a small-particle, glass-filled, visible light-cured composite resin. Twenty-eight sets of three restorations were placed 20 patients and examined using the Ryge rating system. All resins performed well and were not significantly different from one another at 1 year. After 3 years, all materials were considered satisfactory, but the conventional composite resins had significantly more surface roughness than did the other resins. Each of the resin materials also declined in color match after 3 years.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
