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 .
Four-year evaluation of a resin composite including nanofillers in posterior cavities.
PURPOSE The aim of this prospect i ve study was to evaluate the clinical performance of the restorative material Ceram . X in combination with an experimental one-bottle etch- and -rinse adhesive ( K-0127 ) . MATERIAL S AND METHODS A single operator placed two Class I or II restorations in molars of 43 patients . One molar was restored with Ceram . X/K-0127 ( Dentsply DeTrey ) , the other one with Tetric Ceram/Syntac Classic ( Ivoclar Vivadent ) . At baseline , after one , two , and four years the restorations were evaluated by a second dentist using modified Ryge 's criteria . After four years , 27 patients were examined . RESULTS In one patient , both restorations ( Class II ) had to be removed for root canal treatment due to pulpitis . Another Class II Ceram . X restoration ( 3.8 % ; 4.3 % [ 1 of 23 ] of Class II restorations ) showed score C with regard to wear/anatomical form . Thus , the cumulative failure rate was 7.4 % in the Ceram . X group ( 8.3 % of Class II restorations [ 2 of 24 ] ) and 3.7 % in the Tetric Ceram group ( 4.2 % of Class II restorations [ 1 of 24 ] ) . Furthermore , three restorations ( 11.5 % ) in each group showed score B for anatomical form and marginal integrity . Slight marginal discoloration ( score B ) was found at five Ceram . X restorations ( 19.2 % ) and four Tetric Ceram restorations ( 15.4 % ) . Two restorations ( 7.7 % ) in each group showed slight changes in color stability ( score B ) . No sensitivity , recurrent caries , or changes in surface texture were recorded after four years . No statistically significant differences were found between the two restorative material s ( p > 0.05 ) . CONCLUSION After four years of clinical service , 92.6 % of Ceram . X/K-0127 and 96.3 % of Tetric Ceram/Syntac Classic restorations performed clinical ly well
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 .