Three-year Randomized Clinical Evaluation of a Low-shrinkage Silorane-based Resin Composite in Non-carious Cervical Lesions

Overview

Journal Clin Oral Investig

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2013 Aug 17

PMID 23949018

Citations 8

Authors

Batu Can Yaman

Isil Dogruer

Burak Gumustas

Begum Guray Efes

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: The clinical suitability of low-shrinkage resin composites for class V cavities has not been investigated in vivo. The purpose of this double-blind randomized clinical trial was to compare the clinical performances of low-shrinkage resin composite Filtek silorane and nanoceramic resin composite Ceram X mono in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) over 36 months.

Materials And Methods: Two calibrated operators restored 144 NCCLs in 24 patients by using Filtek silorane with silorane system adhesive (FS/SSA) and Ceram X mono with Clearfil SE (CXM/CSE) or XP bond (CXM/XPB). Then, two blinded, calibrated evaluators assessed the restorations at the baseline and 6, 12, 24, and 36 months thereafter by using the modified US Public Health Service criteria. Data were analyzed with the Freidman and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests at a significance level of 5 % (P < 0.05).

Results: No restoration was associated with postoperative sensitivity or secondary caries. Further, no group showed significant changes until 12 months. The retention rates of the FS/SSA (97.5 %), CXM/CSE (97.5 %), and CXM/XPB (92.31 %) restorations did not differ significantly (P > 0.05). Six (4 CXM/XPB, 1 FS/SSA, and 1 CXM/CSE) of the 121 restorations evaluated at 36 months were completely lost. However, no significant intergroup differences were observed in the other evaluation criteria.

Conclusion: The 3-year clinical performances of the restorative materials in NCCLs were not significantly different.

Clinical Relevance: Filtek silorane is suitable for restoring NCCLs.

Citing Articles

Low-Shrinkage Resin Matrices in Restorative Dentistry-Narrative Review.

Albeshir E, Alsahafi R, Albluwi R, Balhaddad A, Mitwalli H, Oates T Materials (Basel). 2022; 15(8).

PMID: 35454643 PMC: 9029384. DOI: 10.3390/ma15082951.

Adhesive strategies in cervical lesions: systematic review and a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Simas Dreweck F, Burey A, Dreweck M, Loguercio A, Reis A Clin Oral Investig. 2021; 25(5):2495-2510.

PMID: 33661448 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-03844-5.

Influence of Different Composites and Polishing Techniques on Periodontal Tissues near Noncarious Cervical Lesions: A Controlled, Randomized, Blinded Clinical Trial.

Teixeira N, Webber M, Nassar C, Camilotti V, Mendonca M, Sinhoreti M Eur J Dent. 2020; 13(4):635-641.

PMID: 31891982 PMC: 6987021. DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-3401900.

Marginal integrity of low-shrinking versus methacrylate-based composite: effect of different one-step self-etch adhesives.

Gregor L, Dorien L, Bortolotto T, Feilzer A, Krejci I Odontology. 2016; 105(3):291-299.

PMID: 27803985 DOI: 10.1007/s10266-016-0274-1.

Comparison of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with nanohybrid, silorane, and fiber reinforced composite: An in vitro study.

Bilgi P, Shah N, Patel P, Vaid D J Conserv Dent. 2016; 19(4):364-7.

PMID: 27563188 PMC: 4979286. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.186458.

References

Cvar J, Ryge G . Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971. Clin Oral Investig. 2005; 9(4):215-32. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-005-0018-z. View

Peumans M, Munck J, van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B . Three-year clinical effectiveness of a two-step self-etch adhesive in cervical lesions. Eur J Oral Sci. 2005; 113(6):512-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2005.00256.x. View

Peumans M, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B . Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials. Dent Mater. 2005; 21(9):864-81. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.02.003. View

Bouillaguet S, Gamba J, Forchelet J, Krejci I, Wataha J . Dynamics of composite polymerization mediates the development of cuspal strain. Dent Mater. 2005; 22(10):896-902. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.11.017. View

Qin W, Song Z, Ye Y, Lin Z . Two-year clinical evaluation of composite resins in non-carious cervical lesions. Clin Oral Investig. 2012; 17(3):799-804. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-012-0780-7. View

Papadogiannis D, Tolidis K, Lakes R, Papadogiannis Y . Viscoelastic properties of low-shrinking composite resins compared to packable composite resins. Dent Mater J. 2011; 30(3):350-7. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2010-181. View

Loguercio A, Manica D, Ferneda F, Zander-Grande C, Amaral R, Stanislawczuk R . A randomized clinical evaluation of a one- and two-step self-etch adhesive over 24 months. Oper Dent. 2010; 35(3):265-72. DOI: 10.2341/09-241-C. View

Peumans M, de Munck J, van Landuyt K, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B . A 13-year clinical evaluation of two three-step etch-and-rinse adhesives in non-carious class-V lesions. Clin Oral Investig. 2010; 16(1):129-37. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-010-0481-z. View

Loguercio A, Reis A, Barbosa A, Roulet J . Five-year double-blind randomized clinical evaluation of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a polyacid-modified resin in noncarious cervical lesions. J Adhes Dent. 2004; 5(4):323-32. View

10.

Burke F, Crisp R, James A, Mackenzie L, Pal A, Sands P . Two year clinical evaluation of a low-shrink resin composite material in UK general dental practices. Dent Mater. 2011; 27(7):622-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.02.012. View

11.

David Eick J, Kotha S, Chappelow C, Kilway K, Giese G, Glaros A . Properties of silorane-based dental resins and composites containing a stress-reducing monomer. Dent Mater. 2006; 23(8):1011-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.09.002. View

12.

Lien W, Vandewalle K . Physical properties of a new silorane-based restorative system. Dent Mater. 2010; 26(4):337-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.12.004. View

13.

Condon J, Ferracane J . Reduction of composite contraction stress through non-bonded microfiller particles. Dent Mater. 1999; 14(4):256-60. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(98)00036-0. View

14.

Van Meerbeek B, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G . Morphological characterization of the interface between resin and sclerotic dentine. J Dent. 1994; 22(3):141-6. DOI: 10.1016/0300-5712(94)90197-x. View

15.

Wood I, Jawad Z, Paisley C, Brunton P . Non-carious cervical tooth surface loss: a literature review. J Dent. 2008; 36(10):759-66. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2008.06.004. View

16.

Schmidt M, Kirkevang L, Horsted-Bindslev P, Poulsen S . Marginal adaptation of a low-shrinkage silorane-based composite: 1-year randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2010; 15(2):291-5. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-010-0446-2. View

17.

van Landuyt K, Mine A, de Munck J, Jaecques S, Peumans M, Lambrechts P . Are one-step adhesives easier to use and better performing? Multifactorial assessment of contemporary one-step self-etching adhesives. J Adhes Dent. 2009; 11(3):175-90. View

18.

Kubo S, Kawasaki K, Yokota H, Hayashi Y . Five-year clinical evaluation of two adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent. 2005; 34(2):97-105. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2005.04.003. View

19.

Yaman B, Guray B, Dorter C, Gomec Y, Yazicioglu O, Erdilek D . Effect of the erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser or diamond bur cavity preparation on the marginal microleakage of class V cavities restored with different adhesives and composite systems. Lasers Med Sci. 2011; 27(4):785-94. DOI: 10.1007/s10103-011-0981-3. View

20.

De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M . A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res. 2005; 84(2):118-32. DOI: 10.1177/154405910508400204. View