Ormocer: An aesthetic direct restorative material; An in vitro study comparing the marginal sealing ability of organically modified ceramics and a hybrid composite using an ormocer-based bonding agent and a conventional fifth-generation bonding agent Clinical performance of ormocer, nanofilled, and nanoceramic resin composites in Class I and Class II restorations: a three-year evaluation. Surface Roughness of Nanofill and Nanohybrid Composite Resin and Ormocer-based Tooth-colored Restorative Materials after Several Finishing and Polishing Procedures Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer, nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorative systems in posterior teeth. A prospective randomized clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: Five-year results. A prospective randomised clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: three-year results. The use of Ormocer as an alternative material for bonding orthodontic brackets. One-year evaluation of two hybrid composites placed in a randomized-controlled clinical trial. Four-year clinical evaluation of Class II nano-hybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch and a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive. Color stability of nanohybrid resin-based composites, ormocers and compomers A Comparative Evaluation of Marginal Leakage of Different Restorative Materials in Deciduous Molars: An in vitro Study Eight-year randomized clinical evaluation of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch or a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive Monomer elution from nanohybrid and ormocer-based composites cured with different light sources. Randomized 3-year clinical evaluation of Class I and II posterior resin restorations placed with a bulk-fill resin composite and a one-step self-etching adhesive. Restorations in abrasion/erosion cervical lesions: 8-year results of a triple blind randomized controlled trial. Silorane, ormocer, methacrylate and compomer long-term staining susceptibility using ΔE and ΔE00 colour-difference formulas
Aims and Objectives : To compare the marginal sealing ability of ormocer with a hybrid composite using an ormocer based bonding agent and a conventional fifth generation bonding agent . Material s and Methods : Fifty four human premolars were r and omly distributed into four test groups of 12 teeth each and two control groups of 3 teeth each . Class I occlusal preparation of 1.5 mm depth were made in each tooth . These were restored using the adhesive and restorative material according to the group . The restorations were finished using a st and ard composite finishing and polishing kit . Thermocycling between 5 ° C and 55 ° C was carried out . Having blocked the root apex and the entire tooth surface except 1 mm around the restoration margin , the teeth were immersed in 2 % methylene blue for 48 hours , after which the dye penetration through the margins of each sample was studied under a stereomicroscope . Results and Discussion : Group IV ( Admira with Admira Bond ) showed the minimum marginal leakage with a mean of 0.200 mm . Four sample s in this group showed no microleakage at all and a maximum of 0.400 mm was seen in one sample . Group II ( Spectrum TPH with Admira Bond ) showed the maximum leakage with a mean of 0.433 mm . One sample showed as much as 1.00 mm of microleakage .  Admira when used with Admira Bond showed lesser microleakage than Spectrum TPH used with Prime & Bond NT , the difference being statistically insignificant PURPOSE This prospect i ve long-term clinical trial evaluated and compared the three-year clinical performance of an ormocer , a nanofilled , and a nanoceramic resin composite with that of a microhybrid composite placed in Class I and Class II cavities . METHODS Forty patients , each with four Class I and II restorations under occlusion , were enrolled in this study . A total of 160 restorations were placed , 25 % for each material , as follows : an ormocer-based composite , Admira ; a nanofilled resin composite , Filtek Supreme XT ; a nanoceramic resin composite , Ceram X ; and a microhybrid resin composite , Tetric Ceram . A single operator placed all restorations according to the manufacturers ' instructions . Immediately after placement the restorations were finished/polished . Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and at yearly intervals after placement by two other independent examiners using modified US Public Health Service ( USPHS ) criteria . The changes in the USPHS parameters during the three-year period were analyzed with the Friedman test . Comparison of the baseline scores with those at the recall visits was made using the Wilcoxon signed rank test . The level of significance was set at p < 0.05 . RESULTS All material s showed only minor changes , and no differences were detected between their performance at baseline and after three years . Only two ormocer , one nanofilled , and one microhybrid restorations in molars failed because of loss of retention . Regarding the clinical performance , there were no statistically significant differences among the material s used ( p>0.05 ) . CONCLUSIONS The ormocer , nanofilled , and nanoceramic composites provided acceptable clinical performance over a three-year period The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of several finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid composites and ormocer-based dental restorative material s. The material s included a nanofill composite ( Supreme ) ; a nanohybrid composite ( Gr and io ) ; and an ormocer ( organically modified ceramic ) ( Admira ) . Forty specimens of each material were prepared using a Mylar strip ( polyester strip ) and r and omly divided into four finishing and polishing groups ( n 1/4 10 ) : ( I ) Diamondbur/Super-snapRainbowTechniqueKit(Al2O2-coated , grade d abrasive discs ) ; ( II ) Diamond bur/Astropol and Astrobrush system ( silicone abrasive polishers and brush system ) ; ( III ) Tungsten carbide bur/Super-snap Rainbow Technique Kit ; and ( IV ) Tungsten carbide bur/Astropol and Astro-brush system . The average surface roughness ( Ra ) in micrometers was measured using a “ Mahr Perthometer S4P ” Surface Roughness Tester and the data were compared using ANOVA at P 0.05 . The results of this study indicated that the Mylar strip produced the smoothest surface on all material s and among the finishing-polishing methods the first and the third methods performed significantly smoother surfaces than the second and the fourth methods for the three restoratives . Ormocer ( Admira ) performed the lowest variability in initial surface roughness among the tested material s . This study has shown that Super-snap abrasive discs produced a smoother surface than the Astropol and Astrobrush silicone polishers for composite and ormocer-based restorative material s , but the results would be valid clinical ly for readily accessible and flat surfaces i.e. , not for all areas in the mouth . Therefore silicone polishers are necessary for posterior areas and for concave and convex surfaces PURPOSE To evaluate and compare the 2-year clinical performance of an ormocer , a nanohybrid , and a nanofill resin composite with that of a microhybrid composite in restorations of small occlusal cavities made in posterior teeth . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Thirty-five patients , each with 4 occlusal restorations under occlusion , were enrolled in this study . A total of 140 restorations  was placed , 25 % for each material : an ormocer-based composite , Admira ; a nanohybrid resin composite , Tetric EvoCeram ; a nanofill resin composite , Filtek Supreme ; and a microhybrid resin composite , Tetric Ceram . Two operators placed all restorations according to the manufacturers ' instructions . One week after placement , the restorations were finished/polished and patients were advised to return for follow-up at 6 months , 1 year , and 2 years . All patients attended the 2-year visit where the clinical performance of all restorations was evaluated . Two independent examiners made all evaluations according to the USPHS modified Ryge criteria immediately after placement of restorations and at subsequent recall visits . The changes in the USPHS parameters during the 2-year period were analyzed with the Friedman test . Comparison of the baseline scores with those at the recall visits was made using the Wilcoxon signed rank test . The level of significance was set at p < 0.05 . RESULTS All material s showed only minor changes , and no differences were detected between their performance at baseline and after 2 years . Only one  ormocer and one  microhybrid composite restoration had failed after 2 years . No failure was detected in nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorations . Regarding the clinical performance , there were no statistically significant differences among the material s used ( p > 0.05 ) . CONCLUSION After 2 years , the ormocer , nanohybrid , and nanofill composites showed acceptable clinical performance similar to that of the microhybrid resin composite OBJECTIVES Ormocer composites , consisting of a silicon-based polymer , have been developed recently as a tooth-colored restorative material . The purpose of this prospect i ve r and omized clinical trial was to evaluate the performance of two small-particle hybrid ormocer-based restorative systems ( AD , Admira/Admira Bond , VOCO ; DE , Definite/Etch & Prime 3.0 , Dentsply ) and one small-particle hybrid bis-GMA-based composite restorative system ( TC , Tetric-Ceram/Syntac , Ivoclar-Vivadent ) in class II cavities . METHODS From 128 occlusal-proximal restorations ( 44 AD , 43 DE and 41 TC ) placed in 32 adult patients , eventually 77 ( 22 AD , 29 DE and 26 TC ) remained available for evaluation after 5 years . Their clinical performance was scored according to the USPHS criteria and evaluation of bite-wing radiographs . RESULTS After 5 years , eight AD , six DE and seven TC restorations had failed ( p=0.10 , log-rank test ) . The main reason was fracture or marginal gap formation , while secondary caries accounted for four failures . In all restorations the quality of surface , margins and contact point decreased significantly compared to baseline . DE had a significant poorer color match ( p<0.01 ) . Statistical evaluation using the KW test showed that failures were concentrated on specific patients . CONCLUSIONS In a group of class II restorations , there was no significant difference in failures after 5 years between ormocer-based and bis-GMA-based restorative systems OBJECTIVES Ormocer composites , consisting of a silicon-based polymer , have been developed recently as a tooth-coloured restorative material . The purpose of this prospect i ve r and omised clinical trial was to evaluate the performance of two small-particle hybrid ormocer-based restorative systems ( AD , Admira/Admira Bond , VOCO ; DE , Definite/Etch & Prime 3.0 , Dentsply ) and one small-particle hybrid bis-GMA-based composite restorative system ( TC , Tetric-Ceram/Syntac , Ivoclar-Vivadent ) in occlusal stress-bearing restorations . METHODS One hundred and twenty-eight occlusal-proximal restorations ( 44 AD , 43 DE and 41 TC ) were placed according to the manufacturer 's instructions in thirty-two adult patients . Their clinical performance was scored according to the USPHS criteria and evaluation of bite-wing radiographs . RESULTS After 3 years , four AD , five DE and four TC restorations had failed due to fracture or marginal gap formation . Surface roughness improved significantly when compared to the baseline in AD and TC ( Friedman test , p<0.05 ) during the first year but returned to baseline values after 3 years . DE had a significant tendency towards discolouration ( p<0.05 ) . Bite-wing radiographs showed two AD and one TC restorations with internal porosities . ANOVA showed that larger restorations ( > or = 3 surfaces ) showed significantly more degradation than smaller ones . CONCLUSIONS In a group of class II restorations , there was no significant difference in failures after 3 years between ormocer-based and bis-GMA-based restorative systems As new adhesives , composite resins , and bonding techniques were introduced , orthodontists adopted some of these innovations and added them to their armamentarium . The purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strength ( SBS ) of two adhesive material s ; one with an organically modified ceramic matrix , Admira ( Voco , Cuxhaven , Germany ) and another that contains the traditional Bis GMA matrix namely Transbond XT ( 3 M Unitek , Monrovia , Calif ) . The new material s have a lower wear rate and are more biocompatible than traditional composites . Forty molar teeth were r and omly divided into two groups : 20 teeth bonded with the Transbond adhesive system  and the other 20 teeth with the Admira bonding system .  Student 's t-test was used to compare the SBS of the two adhesives . Significance was predetermined at P < or = .05 . The results of the t-test comparisons ( t = 0.489 ) of the SBS indicated that there was no significant ( P = .628 ) difference between the two adhesives tested . The mean SBS for Admira was 5.1 + /- 3.3 MPa and that for Transbond XT was 4.6 + /- 3.2 MPa . It was concluded that the new material , Ormocer , which is an organically modified ceramic restorative material can potentially have orthodontic applications if available in a more flowable paste . These new material s are more biocompatible and have lower wear rate including bonding orthodontic brackets to teeth OBJECTIVE The aim of this prospect i ve r and omized-controlled clinical trial is to assess the long-term performance of two direct composite resins in posterior teeth . This study provides a survey of the one-year results . MATERIAL S AND METHODS A total of 1805 restorations were placed by students in stress-bearing Class I/II cavities ( including cuspal-coverage ) in molars and premolars in 456 patients . Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and after one year using modified USPHS criteria . The restorations in each patient were performed either with Ceram X/Prime&Bond NT or Tetric Ceram/Optibond Solo Plus . RESULTS After one year 528 fillings with Ceram X and 580 with Tetric Ceram were available for evaluation of substance loss , contact point , color match , marginal staining , marginal adaptation , secondary caries and radiographic examination ( if necessary ) . This represents a recall rate of 61.18 % ( 279 patients ) . The failure rate per material was 5.3 % in the Ceram X group and 6.1 % in the Tetric Ceram group . Most of the failures were associated with marginal adaptation/integrity of the filling . A significant influence on the occurrence of a failure was observed for the number of treated teeth per patient , the age of the patient , the mesio-distal extension of the restoration and the tooth position . Gender , material , a previous root canal treatment , the bucco-lingual extension of the filling or cuspal-coverage did not significantly influence the failure rate . Patients attending the first recall were significantly older and had more fillings than patients not attending . CONCLUSIONS In a group of Class I/II restorations ( including cuspal-coverage ) , there was no significant difference in failure rates between ormocer-based and bis-GMA-based restorative systems after one year . A previous root canal treatment had no negative influence on the failure rate . A longer observation period is indicated to get clear evidence of the long-term performance of these composite resin systems OBJECTIVE The objective of this prospect i ve clinical trial was to evaluate the 4-year clinical performance of an ormocer-based nano-hybrid resin composite ( Ceram X ; Dentsply/DeTrey ) in Class II restorations placed with a one-step self-etch ( Xeno III ; Dentsply/DeTrey ) and two-step etch- and -rinse adhesive ( Ivoclar Vivadent ) . METHODS Seventy-eight participants received at r and om at least two , as similar as possible , Class II restorations of the nano-hybrid resin composite bonded with either a single step self-etch adhesive or a control 2-step etch- and -rinse adhesive . The 165 restorations were evaluated using slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and then yearly during 4 years . RESULTS 162 restorations were evaluated at 4 years . Postoperative sensitivity was observed in 6 patients ( 3 Xeno III , 3 Exite ) between 1 and 3 weeks . Eleven failed restorations ( 6.8 % ) were observed during the follow up . Seven in the one-step self-etch adhesive group ( 7.7 % ) and four in the 2-step etch- and -rinse group ( 5.6 % ) . This result ed in non-significant different annual failure rates of 1.9 % and 1.4 % , respectively . Fracture of restoration was the main reason for failure . CONCLUSION The ormocer-based nano-hybrid resin composite showed a good clinical performance in Class II cavities during the 4 year evaluation . No significant difference was seen in overall clinical effectiveness between the two adhesives Objective The aim of this study is to evaluate the color stability of two nanohybrid resin-based composites , two organic modified ceramic resin composites ( ormocers ) and a compomer , following their immersion during 4 weeks in four usual drinks . Material and methods Forty discs of each of the following material s were prepared : Gr and ioSO ( GR ) , Esthet X ( EX ) , Dyract EXTRA ( DY ) , Ceram X duo ( CX ) , and Admira Fusion ( AD ) . The discs were polished and stored in distilled water during 24 h at 37 ° C . Color according to the CIEL*a*b * scale was recoded . Ten r and omly selected sample s of each material were immersed in red wine ( RW ) , coffee ( CF ) , cola ( CK ) , and distilled water ( DW ) . The color was recorded after 1 , 7 , 21 and 28 days of immersion . The ΔE values between the baseline color and each of the study timepoints were calculated . The data were analyzed based on the Kruskal-Wallis test , Wilcoxon test , and Mann-Whitney U test . Results After 1 day of immersion , all the material s showed ΔE > 3.3 , except EX , CF , and CX in CK . RD was the most staining beverage ( ΔE 15.36 to 31.09 ) . EX and CX were significantly less stained than the rest of the material s ( p < 0.05 ) . Conclusions All the staining solutions produced darkening beyond clinical ly acceptable limits . EX and CX were the material s who experimented less staining , followed by GD . AD and DY were the material s more stained . RW was the drink that produced more staining , followed by CF and CK . Clinical relevance After 24 h of immersion in all the solutions , equivalent to 1 month of exposure in the mouth , the evaluated material s showed clinical ly unacceptable ΔE values ABSTRACT Context : Microleakage around dental restorative material s is a major problem in clinical dentistry . Inspite of many new restorative material s available in the market very few actually bond to the tooth surface . Aims : The aims of this study were : ( 1 ) To evaluate and compare the marginal leakage of newer restorative material s viz colored compomer , ormocer , giomer and RMGIC in class I restoration of deciduous molars . ( 2 ) To compare the microleakage scores between the groups of : Colored compomer and ormocer , giomer and RMGIC , ormocer with giomer and RMGIC , giomer with RMGIC . Material s and methods : A total of 40 primary molars were r and omly divided into four groups of 10 each . Class I cavities were prepared and the cavities were restored with colored compomer ( Group A ) , Ormocer ( Group B ) , Giomer ( Group C ) and RMGIC ( Group D ) . The teeth were thermocycled and subjected to 0.5 % basic fuchsin dye penetration followed by sectioning . The cut sections were evaluated under a stereomicroscope and the data was subjected to statistical analysis . Statistical analysis used : Mann-Whitney U test and Student t-test . Results : No significant difference was observed when colored compomer was compared to ormocer , giomer and RMGIC . Ormocer showed significantly lower microleakage when compared to giomer . However , no significant difference was observed when ormocer was compared to RMGIC . No significant difference between giomer and RMGIC was found . Conclusion : Ormocer has proven to be an excellent restorative material as it showed least microleakage followed by colored compomer , giomer and RMGIC in increasing order . How to cite this article : Yadav G , Rehani U , Rana V. A Comparative Evaluation of Marginal Leakage of Different Restorative Material s in Deciduous Molars : An in vitro Study . Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2012;5(2):101 - 107 Objectives The aim of this study is to observe the durability of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations  , placed with two different adhesive systems , in an 8-year follow-up . Methods Seventy-eight participants received at r and om at least two Class II restorations of the ormocer-based nanohybrid resin composite ( Ceram X ) bonded with either a one-step self-etch adhesive ( Xeno III ) or a control two-step etch- and -rinse adhesive ( Excite ) . The 165 restorations were evaluated using slightly modified United States Public Health Services ( USPHS ) criteria at baseline and then yearly during 8 years . Results One hundred and fifty-eight restorations were evaluated after 8 years . Three participants with five restorations ( three Xeno III , two Excite ) were registered as dropouts . Twenty-one failed restorations ( 13.3 % ) were observed during the follow-up . Twelve in the one-step self-etch adhesive group ( 13.5 % ) and nine in the two-step etch- and -rinse group ( 13.0 % ) . This result ed in nonsignificant different annual failure rates of 1.69 and 1.63 % , respectively . Fracture of restoration was the main reason for failure . Conclusion Good clinical performance was shown during the 8-year evaluation and no significant difference in overall clinical performance between the two adhesives . Fracture was the main reason for failure . Clinical relevance The one-step self-etch adhesive showed a good long-term clinical effectiveness in combination with the nanohybrid resin composite in Class II restorations OBJECTIVES To study monomer elution from four resin-based composites ( RBCs )  cured with different light sources . METHODS Twenty-eight premolars were r and omly allocated to four groups . St and ardized cavities were prepared and restored with a nanohybrid ( Filtek Supreme XT or Tetric EvoCeram ) , an ormocer ( Admira ) or a microhybrid RBC ( Filtek Z250 ) which served as control . Buccal restorations were cured with a halogen and oral restorations with an LED light-curing unit . Elution of diurethane dimethacrylate ( UDMA ) , Bisphenol A diglycidylether methacrylate ( BisGMA ) , triethylene glycol dimethacrylate ( TEGDMA ) and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate ( HEMA ) was analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatography ( HPLC ) 1h to 28 days post-immersion in 75 % ethanol . Data were analyzed using multivariate and repeated measures analysis of variance ( α = 0.05 ) . RESULTS The greatest elution of UDMA and BisGMA occurred from Tetric EvoCeram and the least from Filtek Z250 ( p < 0.05 ) . LED and halogen light-curing units gave similar results for all RBCs ( p > 0.05 ) except Tetric EvoCeram which showed greater elution for the LED unit ( p < 0.05 ) . TEGDMA was below the limit of quantification . HEMA eluted in similar concentrations from Filtek Supreme and Tetric EvoCeram ( p > 0.05 ) . SIGNIFICANCE The two nanohybrid RBCs eluted more cross-linking monomers than the ormocer and the control microhybrid RBC . Continuous elution over 28 days indicates that RBCs act as a chronic source of monomers in clinical conditions . Light source may affect monomer elution since differences were found for one out of four RBCs . Mathematical models for elution kinetics of UDMA and BisGMA indicated two elution mechanisms PURPOSE To evaluate the 3-year clinical durability of the flowable bulk-fill resin composite SDR in Class I and Class II restorations . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Thirty-eight pairs of Class I and 62 pairs of Class II restorations were placed in 44 male and 42 female patients ( mean age 52.4 years ) . Each patient received at least two extended Class I or Class II restorations that were as similar as possible . In all cavities , a one-step self-etching adhesive ( XenoV+ ) was applied . One of the cavities of each pair was r and omly assigned to receive the flowable bulk-fill resin composite SDR in increments up to 4 mm as needed to fill the cavity 2 mm short of the occlusal cavosurface . The occlusal part was completed with an ormocer-based nanohybrid resin composite ( Ceram X mono+ ) . In the other cavity , only the resin composite CeramX mono+ was placed in 2 mm increments . The restorations were evaluated using slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and then annually for 3 years . Caries risk and bruxing habits of the participants were estimated . RESULTS No post-operative sensitivity was reported . At the 3-year follow-up , 196 restorations - 74 Class I and 122 Class II - were evaluated . Seven restorations failed ( 3.6 % ) , 4 SDR-CeramX mono+ and 3 CeramX mono+ only restorations , all of which were Class II . The main reason for failure was tooth fracture , followed by resin composite fracture . The annual failure rate ( AFR ) for all restorations ( Class I and II ) was 1.2 % for the bulkfilled restorations and 1.0 % for the resin composite-only restorations ( p > 0.05 ) . For the Class II restorations , the AFR was 2.2 % and 1.6 % , respectively . CONCLUSION The 4-mm bulk-fill technique showed good clinical effectiveness during the 3-year follow-up PURPOSE An equivalence r and omized controlled trial within the subject was organized to evaluate the clinical long-term success of a new 2-step etch & rinse adhesive and a new nano-filled ormocer . METHODS 50 subjects , 21 males and 29 females aged between 21 and 65 , were r and omized to receive 150 restorations , 100 with the new restorative material , 50 with the composite as control , placed in non-carious cervical lesions with the same bonding system . The main outcome measure was the cause of failure at 8 years . R and omization was number table-generated , with allocation concealment by opaque sequentially numbered sealed and stapled envelopes . Subjects , examiner , and analyst were blinded to group assignment . Two interim analyses were performed . Data were analyzed by ANOVA and Cox test ( P < 0.05 ) . RESULTS After 8 years , 40 subjects and 120 teeth were included in the analysis of the primary outcome . There were eight failures in the experimental group and four failures in the control group . The cumulative loss rate was 7 % for both restorative material s , with the annual failure lower than 1 % , without any statistically significant difference . There were two key elements of failure : the presence of sclerotic dentin and the relationship between lesion and gingival margin The aim of this study was to evaluate the staining susceptibility of a silorane ( Filtek Silorane ) , an ormocer ( Ceram X Duo ) , a methacrylate ( Tetric EvoCeram ) and a compomer ( Dyract ) exposed on the long term to various staining agents by using ΔE and ΔE00 colour-difference formulas . Thirty-six disc-shaped specimens were made of each of the four chemically different material s , r and omly divided in six groups ( n = 6 ) and immersed in five staining solutions ( red wine , juice , coke , tea and coffee ) or stored dry ( control ) in an incubator at 37 ° C for 99 days . Spectrophotometric measurements by means of a spectrophotometer ( Spectroshade H and y Dental , MHT ) were repeated over a white ( L * = 92.6 , a * = −1.2 , b * = 2.9 ) and black ( L * = 1.6 , a * = 1.2 , b * = −1.0 ) background made of plasticized paper , in order to determine the colour changes according to ΔE , ΔE00 and translucency formulas . Statistical analysis was performed by means of factorial Anova , Fisher ’s LSD test ( post hoc ) and a Spearman rank correlation between ΔE and ΔE00 . When analysed over a white background , mean ΔE00 values were highly significantly different and varied from 0.8 ( Ceram X Duo/air ) to 20.9 ( Ceram X Duo/red wine ) . When analysed over a black background , mean ΔE00 values were highly significantly different and varied from 1.0 ( Ceram X Duo and Tetric/air ) to 25.2 ( Ceram X Duo/red wine ) . Differences in translucency varied from 0.3 ( Ceram X Duo/air ) to 21.1 ( Ceram X Duo/juice ) . The correlation between ΔE and ΔE00 over a white background was 0.9928 , while over a black background , it was 0.9886
SIGNIFICANCE This study did not identify clear advantages of using the first generation of ormocer-based fillings rather than conventional composites .
OBJECTIVES In-vitro experiments on  ormocers ( ORganically MOdified CERamics )  have provided controversial results .
Consequently , the objectives of this meta- analysis were to ( 1 ) compare clinical performances of first generation ormocers versus conventional composite restorations  , ( 2 ) explore the influence of various clinical factors and the impact of the quality of studies on published results .