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

Abstract

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-

Bond Strengths of Silorane- and Methacrylate-Based Composites to Various Underlying Materials

“…There is currently no consensus about the bonding performance of the silorane adhesive system. Some studies found that silorane adhesive system showed equal performance with conventional methacrylate-based adhesives [36–38]. However our study is in line with the others that found lower bond efficiency [18, 39].…”

Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: Low polymerization shrinkage resin in comparison to methacrylate composite resin

“…Fifteen studies evaluated marginal adaptation after 12 months, with one study [ 17 ] presenting three experimental groups, and another [ 40 ] two experimental groups, totaling 18 experimental groups ( Fig 4 ). Among the 18 groups, 12 presented results that favored the control group (conventional composite), [ 19 , 25 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 33 , 34 , 37 , 40 , 41 ] two that favored the experimental group (resins with modified monomers) [ 32 , 35 ], one that did not favor any of the groups, since results were similar for both groups [ 29 ], two presented no marginal adaptation alterations in both groups [ 17 , 26 ], and one study reported that all restorations in both groups demonstrated some sort of marginal adaptation alteration [ 38 ]. Meta-analysis demonstrated that at the 12-month follow-up assessment, the overall effect of methacrylates-based composite resins was significantly better than the ormocer, silorane and bulk-fill composites (p = 0.001).…”

Polymer-Based Direct Filling Materials

“…Nanofills have also been demonstrated to behave very similarly in vitro to nano- and micro-hybrids, both in terms of mechanical properties and depth of cure [35, 36]. Clinical studies with follow up times of up to 5 years have demonstrated an annual failure rate for nanofilled composites of less than 3%, deeming these materials clinically acceptable and within the range of survival of micro- and nano-hybrid materials [37–39]. …”