Cuspal Deflection in Premolar Teeth Restored Using Current Composite Resins With and Without Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Liner

Karaman, Emel; Özgünaltay, Gül

doi:10.2341/11-400-l

Cited by 24 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The slow polymerization reaction and lower shrinkage stress of silorane-based composite might be responsible for the decreased cuspal deflection in MOD-prepared vital premolars27,37,38 and subsequently for the increased strength.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored by silorane-based composite with or without fiber or nano-ionomer

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSEThis in vitro study investigated the fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored using silorane- or methacrylate-based composite along with or without fiber or nano-ionomer base.MATERIALS AND METHODSNinety-six intact maxillary premolars were randomly divided into eight groups (n = 12). G1 (negative control) was the intact teeth. In Groups 2-8, root canal treatment with mesio-occlusodistal preparation was performed. G2 (positive control) was kept unrestored. The other groups were restored using composite resin as follows: G3, methacrylate-based composite (Z250); G4, methacrylate composite (Z250) with polyethylene fiber; G5 and G6, silorane-based composite (Filtek P90) without and with the fiber, respectively; G7 and G8, methacrylate- and silorane-based composite with nano-ionomer base, respectively. After aging period and thermocycling for 1000 cycles, fracture strength was tested and fracture patterns were inspected. The results were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests (α=0.05).RESULTSMean fracture resistance for the eight groups (in Newton) were G1: 1200 ± 169a, G2: 360 ± 93b, G3: 632 ± 196c, G4: 692 ± 195c, G5: 917 ± 159d, G6: 1013 ± 125ad, G7: 959 ± 148d, G8: 947 ± 105d (different superscript letters revealed significant difference among groups). Most of the fractures in all the groups were restorable, except Group 3.CONCLUSIONSilorane-based composite revealed significantly higher strength of the restored premolars compared to that of methacrylate one. Fiber insertion demonstrated no additional effect on the strength of both composite restorations; however, it increased the prevalence of restorable fracture of methacrylate-based composite restored teeth. Using nano-ionomer base under methacrylate-based composite had a positive effect on fracture resistance and pattern. Only fiber-reinforced silorane composite restoration resulted in a strength similar to that of the intact teeth.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored by silorane-based composite with or without fiber or nano-ionomer

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lowshrinkage silorane-based resins such as Filtek Silorane have been suggested as a means to reduce shrinkage and cuspal deflection. 6 During siloranebased resin composite polymerization, ring-opening monomers connect by opening, flattening, and extending toward each other. This mechanism results in less volumetric shrinkage compared with methacrylate-based composites.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three-year Clinical Evaluation of Different Restorative Resins in Class I Restorations

Yazici

Ustunkol

Özgünaltay

et al. 2014

Operative Dentistry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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-

show abstract

“…The facial and lingual walls of the cavity were also prepared parallel to each other in accordance with a previously reported procedure. [13,14] Following cavity preparation, the tooth surfaces were acid etched with 35% phosphoric acid for 15 s and rinsed with air-water spray for 20 s. Enamel surfaces of the cavity were dried with compressed air and dentin surfaces were dried with cotton pledgets. Two consecutive coats of Adper Single Bond 2 were applied using a microbrush for 15 s, followed by gentle air drying and then light curing for 10 s. In Group 1, a bulk-fill composite resin, Quixfil (Dentsply DeTrey, Constance, Germany), was used with the bulk-fill technique for restoring the teeth.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cuspal deflection and microleakage in pre molar teeth restored with bulk-fill resin-based composites

Güler

Karaman

2014

Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cuspal Deflection in Premolar Teeth Restored Using Current Composite Resins With and Without Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Liner

Abstract: The use of silorane-based composites and the placement of RMGIC liner under the composite resin restorations resulted in significantly reduced cuspal deflection.

Cited by 24 publications

References 19 publications

Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored by silorane-based composite with or without fiber or nano-ionomer

Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored by silorane-based composite with or without fiber or nano-ionomer

Three-year Clinical Evaluation of Different Restorative Resins in Class I Restorations

Cuspal deflection and microleakage in pre molar teeth restored with bulk-fill resin-based composites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About