Three-year clinical evaluation of a silorane composite resin
- PMID: 24344912
- DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12077
Three-year clinical evaluation of a silorane composite resin
Abstract
Statement of problem: Composite resins are still outperformed by amalgams in the clinical practice with secondary caries and fractures being their most common failures. A material that suffers less polymerization shrinkage might improve the clinical performance of composite resins.
Purpose: To evaluate the clinical performance of a low-shrink silorane-based composite resin (Filtek LS Low Shrink Posterior Restorative, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) in comparison with a methacrylate-based composite resin (Tetric EvoCeram, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Principality of Liechtenstein) over time.
Materials and methods: Candidates in need of Class II composite resin restorations participated in this randomized controlled clinical trial. Those were 25 female and six male subjects with average age of 44.3 ± 12.7 years. Participants received 82 restorations, being 54 in premolars and 28 in molars. Procedures, which included the restoration of primary caries lesions or replacement of failing restorations, were done using modified preparations with no bevels or additional retention. Restorations were placed using Filtek LS (and dedicated self-etch adhesive) or Tetric EvoCeram (with AdheSE, Ivoclar Vivadent), following manufacturers' instructions. Incremental placement technique was applied and the restorations were immediately finished. Follow-up evaluations occurred at six, 12, 24, and 36 months and were done using the Fédération Dentaire Internationale criteria. Statistical analysis was performed using generalized estimating equations.
Results: The recall rate at 36 months was 89%. All interaction terms were not significant.
Conclusions: Filtek LS performs as well as Tetric EvoCeram performs in the clinical setting at 36 months.
Clinical significance: The silorane-based composite resin Filtek LS and the conventional methacrylate-based composite resin Tetric EvoCeram performed similarly well in posterior restorations over at least 36 months of clinical service.
© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Similar articles
-
Repair of dimethacrylate-based composite restorations by a silorane-based composite: a one-year randomized clinical trial.Oper Dent. 2012 Sep-Oct;37(5):E1-10. doi: 10.2341/11-121-C. Epub 2012 May 21. Oper Dent. 2012. PMID: 22616930 Clinical Trial.
-
Microleakage of silorane- and methacrylate-based class V composite restorations.Clin Oral Investig. 2012 Aug;16(4):1117-24. doi: 10.1007/s00784-011-0619-7. Epub 2011 Sep 27. Clin Oral Investig. 2012. PMID: 21947906
-
A split-mouth randomized clinical trial of conventional and heavy flowable composites in class II restorations.J Dent. 2014 Jul;42(7):793-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.04.009. Epub 2014 Apr 25. J Dent. 2014. PMID: 24769385 Clinical Trial.
-
Two year clinical evaluation of a low-shrink resin composite material in UK general dental practices.Dent Mater. 2011 Jul;27(7):622-30. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.02.012. Epub 2011 Apr 22. Dent Mater. 2011. PMID: 21514654 Review.
-
Quality and Survival of Direct Light-Activated Composite Resin Restorations in Posterior Teeth: A 5- to 20-Year Retrospective Longitudinal Study.J Prosthodont. 2019 Jan;28(1):e195-e203. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12630. Epub 2017 May 17. J Prosthodont. 2019. PMID: 28513897 Review.
Cited by
-
Proposal of a Modular Classification System for Direct Dental Resin Composites Based on Clinical Applications.Polymers (Basel). 2025 Feb 20;17(5):564. doi: 10.3390/polym17050564. Polymers (Basel). 2025. PMID: 40076058 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Effect of 30% hydrogen peroxide on marginal integrity of silorane-based versus methacrylate-based composite restorations.J Dent (Tehran). 2014 Sep;11(5):545-53. Epub 2014 Sep 30. J Dent (Tehran). 2014. PMID: 25628681 Free PMC article.
-
Five-year clinical performance of a silorane- vs a methacrylate-based composite combined with two different adhesive approaches.Clin Oral Investig. 2016 Jun;20(5):991-1001. doi: 10.1007/s00784-015-1591-4. Epub 2015 Sep 21. Clin Oral Investig. 2016. PMID: 26388406
-
Compliance of randomized controlled trials in posterior restorations with the CONSORT statement: a systematic review of methodology.Clin Oral Investig. 2022 Jan;26(1):41-64. doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-04198-8. Epub 2021 Sep 30. Clin Oral Investig. 2022. PMID: 34595606
-
Clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage resin composite in endodontically treated premolars: 3-year follow-up.Clin Oral Investig. 2019 May;23(5):2323-2330. doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2677-6. Epub 2018 Oct 6. Clin Oral Investig. 2019. PMID: 30293184 Clinical Trial.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Research Materials