Composite materials are currently widely used for the reconstruction of dental hard tissues, particularly in aesthetic dentistry. As reconstructive materials they are consistent with the universally accepted principles of minimally invasive direct reconstruction method. Universal composites are used both for anterior and posterior teeth restorations; however, the insufficient aesthetic effect and low translucency may cause a shadow effect and grey shade of the filling. The introduction of nanoceramic technology allows for combining the advantages of a microfilled material with mechanical properties characteristic of hybrid composites (1-6). Evetric is a state-of-the-art, light-cured, nanohybrid composite material with a very wide range of applications. It is designed for the reconstruction of anterior (class III and IV) and posterior teeth (class I and II), restoration of cervical lesions (class V), root lesions and abfraction lesions as well as splinting of loosened teeth, blocking out undercuts and making composite veneers. The monomer matrix is composed of dimethacrylates, while fillers include barium glass, ytterbium trifluoride, mixed oxides and prepolymers with particle size between 40 and 3000 nm. The total content of inorganic fillers in the material is 50-57%. Additional ingredients such as pigments, stabilizers and catalysts account for less than 1% of the material’s weight. The composition of Evetric includes three different types of nanoparticles: integrated nanopigments responsible for a chameleon effect and excellent shade adaptation, nanofillers of various particle size for very good polishability, lustre finish and higher abrasion resistance as well as nanomodifiers for easy modelling and non-stick properties (1). Prepolymers reduce polymerization shrinkage and shrinkage stress, while the presence of an ytterbium compound and barium glass ensures full radiopacity of 400% Al (compared to other materials such as Filtek – 250% Al or Gradia Direct – 100% Al). The optical properties are very close to those of natural dental tissues, which allows for good visual integration. The material is available in 10 shades according to the Vita shade guide with gradual translucency and demonstrates biocompatibility with the adhesive systems available on the market.

The aim of the study was to perform clinical evaluation of restorations made using the Evetric composite material immediately following insertion and after 3, 6 and 12 months.

The evaluated material, Evetric by Ivoclar Vivadent, was used to restore 198 cavities in patients of both sexes aged 18 to 60 years. Class I cavities accounted for 14.65% of all restored teeth, class II cavities for 35.90%, class III cavities for 12.10%, class IV cavities for 4.55% and class V cavities for 32.80% (tab. 1). There were 144 carious lesions (72.7%) and 54 non-carious lesions (27.3%) (tab. 2 and 3).

Carious lesions were prepared according to the principles of minimally invasive technique. In teeth with viable pulp glass ionomer cement base was used only for deep lesions (32%). The total etch technique using a 5^th generation adhesive system (OptiBond Solo Plus) and layer filling technique were used for reconstruction. Material in the following shades was used: A2, A3, A3.5, B3, C2. The restorations were finished with abrasives of decreasing grade. The restorations were evaluated four times: on the day of insertion (examination 0), after 3 months (examination 1), after 6 months (examination 2) and after 12 months (examination 3), according to Cvar and Ryge criteria modified by Palaniappan. A 0-3 scale was used to evaluate the surface, shade, anatomical shape, marginal seal, abrasion resistance and retention of the fillings as well as postoperative sensitivity and patient satisfaction. The values on the scale signified the following rating: 0 – excellent, 1 – good, requires small correction, 2 – satisfactory, requires considerable correction (delayed replacement), 3 – unsatisfactory, requires immediate replacement or the filling has been lost. The examination additionally involved evaluation of fillings in terms of clinical acceptability according to the criteria presented below:

– ideal filling with 0 for all categories,

– filling requiring small correction – rating of 1 in at least one category,

– filling requiring delayed correction – rating of 2 in at least one category,

– filling requiring immediate correction – rating of 3 in at least one category.

The restorations were performed by dentists on postgraduate internship (69) and by fourth and fifth year students (129), all supervised by a dentist with clinical experience.