Except for the better marginal adaptation that packable resin composite showed, siloranebased restorative, nanofilled resin, and packable resin composite resulted in similar clinical performance in restoring Class I cavities after 3 years. SUMMARYThe aim of the present study was to evaluate the three-year clinical performance of a nanofilled resin composite, a packable resin composite, and silorane-based resin restorations in Class I occlusal cavities. Twenty-eight patients with at least three similar-sized occlusal lesions in molar teeth participated in the study. A total of 84 Class I occlusal restorations were placed: 28 with nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Supreme), 28 with packable resin composite (P60), and 28 with silorane-based resin (Filtek Silorane). Filtek Supreme and P60 were used with their respective etch-and-rinse adhesive system, Adper Single Bond 2, and Filtek Silorane was used with its respective self-etch adhesive, Filtek Silorane Adhesive. All restorations were placed by the same operator. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, at six months, and annually for three years according to modified US Public Health Service criteria by two calibrated examiners who did not know which restorative resin had been used. The three restorative materials for each category were compared using the v 2 test at a significance level of 0.05. Cochran's Q test was used to compare the changes across the five time points for each restorative material. McNemar's test followed by Bonferroni adjustment was used when significance differences were found. At the end of the three years, 60 restorations were evaluated in 20 patients, with a recall rate of 71.4%. The retention rate was 100% for all restorative resins. Eight restorations from the P60 group, ten from the Filtek Supreme group, and nine from the Filtek Silorane group were rated Bravo for marginal discoloration. For marginal adapta-

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of Silorane System Adhesive to enamel and dentin surfaces that had been etched with different procedures. Ninety freshly extracted human third molars were used for the study. After the teeth were embedded with buccal surfaces facing up, they were randomly divided into two groups. In group I, specimens were polished with a 600-grit silicon carbide (SiC) paper to obtain flat exposed enamel. In group II, the overlying enamel layer was removed and exposed dentin surfaces were polished with a 600-grit SiC paper. Then, the teeth in each group were randomly divided into three subgroups according to etching procedures: etched with erbium, chromium:yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet laser (a), etched with 35% phosphoric acid (b), and non-etched (c, control). Silorane System Adhesive was used to bond silorane restorative to both enamel and dentin. After 24-h storage in distilled water at room temperature, a SBS test was performed using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni tests (p < 0.05). The highest SBS was found after additional phosphoric acid treatment in dentin groups (p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the laser-etched and non-etched groups in enamel and dentin (p > 0.05). The SBS of self-etch adhesive to dentin was not statistically different from enamel (p > 0.05). Phosphoric acid treatment seems the most promising surface treatment for increasing the enamel and dentin bond strength of Silorane System Adhesive.

Both silorane- and methacrylate-based resin composites showed clinically acceptable performance in class II slot restorations after 24 months.