Marginal adaptation of a low-shrinkage silorane-based composite: 1-year randomized clinical trial

Schmidt, Morten; Kirkevang, Lise‐Lotte; Hørsted‐Bindslev, Preben; Poulsen, Sven

doi:10.1007/s00784-010-0446-2

Cited by 57 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…39 These studies confirm that reduced shrinkage per se does neither guarantee attenuation of stress in restored teeth, 10 nor does it improve the interfacial integrity of the restoration, 6 which is in line with the findings of previous clinical studies. 25,40 The authors of another clinical report 41 related to Filtek Silorane analyzed exclusively the marginal adaptation and reported better marginal adaptation for the methacrylate-based resin composite (Ceram.X, Dentsply) compared to that of Filtek Silorane.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Evaluation of a Low-shrinkage Composite in Posterior Restorations: One-Year Results

Baracco¹,

Perdigão²,

Cabrera³

et al. 2012

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Filtek Silorane showed acceptable clinical performance after one year. However, the lowshrinkage resin combined with the self-etch adhesive did not provide any advantage over the methacrylate-based composite combined with the total-etch adhesive. SUMMARYObjectives: The aim of this study was to compare the one-year clinical performance of three restorative systems, which included a novel low-shrinkage composite and two bonding strategies.Materials and Methods: Twenty-five patients received three Class I (occlusal) or Class II restorations performed with one of three restorative systems: Filtek Silorane Restorative System (FS); Adper Scotchbond 1 XT, a twostep etch-and-rinse adhesive, with Filtek Z250 (XT); and Adper Scotchbond SE, a two-step self-etch adhesive, with Filtek Z250 (SE). All materials were applied following the manufacturer's instructions. Two independent observers evaluated the restorations at baseline, after six months, and after one year, according to the United States Public Health System modified criteria. The Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney U-test were computed to compare the behavior of the restorative systems; Friedman and Wilcoxon tests were used to analyze the intrasystem data (a=0.05).Results: All restorations were evaluated at one year. FS and XT performed statistically similarly at one year, but marginal staining for SE was statistically worse. Intrasystem comparisons between baseline and one year also showed deterioration of marginal staining for SE, while a deterioration of the marginal adaptation was recorded for both SE and FS. XT was the only system for which there was no

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Evaluation of a Low-shrinkage Composite in Posterior Restorations: One-Year Results

Baracco¹,

Perdigão²,

Cabrera³

et al. 2012

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…7 Many laboratory studies have addressed bond strength of silorane-based restorative on tooth structure; however, it is of paramount relevance to study the clinical behavior of silorane restorative resin, as information about the clinical performance of this restorative is very limited. [8][9][10][11][12] Moreover, the results of these in vitro studies cannot always be directly extrapolated to the performance of restorative materials.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Yazici

Ustunkol

Özgünaltay

et al. 2014

Operative Dentistry

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 improvement in the Siloranes formulation is required 40) , because of detachment of quartz particles from the matrix, resulting in a modified silane bond between the silorane matrix and quartz 41) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of thermo-mechanical load cycling on silorane-based composite restorations

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to compare the formation of marginal gaps after thermo-mechanical load cycling, between siloranebased and methacrylate-based restorations. Standardized class II cavities were made in 10 permanent human third molars that were restored with the adhesive system Clearfil SE Bond+composite Filtek Z-350 (Methacrylates) and with the composite bonding Filtek P90+P90 (Siloranes), respectively. After 24 h of storage in 100% humidity at 37°C, the restoration margins were stained, photographed, and evaluated. The gap length was calculated as the percentage of the total length of the margins. Thereafter, the specimens were tested by a thermo-mechanical machine and the marginal gap formation of the specimens was re-evaluated. The results were expressed as percentages of gaps and were submitted to a Mann Whitney test at 5% level of significance. Methacrylates showed a statistically significant higher percentage of gaps than Siloranes, both before and after cycling.

show abstract

Marginal adaptation of a low-shrinkage silorane-based composite: 1-year randomized clinical trial

Cited by 57 publications

References 18 publications

Clinical Evaluation of a Low-shrinkage Composite in Posterior Restorations: One-Year Results

Clinical Evaluation of a Low-shrinkage Composite in Posterior Restorations: One-Year Results

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

Effect of thermo-mechanical load cycling on silorane-based composite restorations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About