IADR Abstract Archives
Comparison of Silorane /Methacrylate-based Composites in Laser/Bur Prepared Cavities
Objectives: To compare the clinical performance of a silorane-based composite with a low-shrinking methacrylate-based nano-hybrid composite in occlusal cavities prepared by Er.Cr:YSGG laser or conventional diamond bur over 12 months.
Methods: Eighteen patients with four similar-sized occlusal lesions in molar teeth participated to this study. Using a table of random numbers, a total of 72 Class I occlusal cavities were prepared either by Er,Cr:YSGG laser or conventional diamond bur. Cavities were restored with Filtek™Silorane(3M-ESPE) or with Kalore™(GC) according to the manufacturers' instructions. All restorative procedures were performed by one operator and the restorations were examined by two evaluators according to the FDI criteria at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. Patients’ satisfaction about the preparation methods was evaluated with questionnaire. Pearson Chi-Square test was used for statistical analyze(p=0.05).
Results: After 12 months, recall rate was 100%. All restorations were scored as 1 for all esthetic properties except marginal staining. Twelve restorations from Laser/Silorane group and 11 restorations from Bur/Silorane group, 15 restorations from Laser/Kalore group and 12 restorations from Bur/Kalore group were scored as 2 for marginal staining. Ten restorations from Laser/Silorane group and 11 restorations from Bur/Silorane group; 15 restorations from Laser/Kalore and 11 restorations from Bur/Kalore group were scored as 2 for marginal adaptation. No significant differences were found among the four groups in marginal adaptation and marginal staining (p>0.05). Only 2 patients(11.1%) reported slight discomfort during laser preparation, whereas 9 patients(50%) were uncomfortable with bur preparation(p<0.05).
Conclusions: Twelve month evaluation of both materials used for the restoration of Er,Cr:YSGG laser or bur prepared Class I cavities exhibited a similar and clinically acceptable performance. Er,Cr:YSGG laser was considered more comfortable and painless compared with bur preparation.
Methods: Eighteen patients with four similar-sized occlusal lesions in molar teeth participated to this study. Using a table of random numbers, a total of 72 Class I occlusal cavities were prepared either by Er,Cr:YSGG laser or conventional diamond bur. Cavities were restored with Filtek™Silorane(3M-ESPE) or with Kalore™(GC) according to the manufacturers' instructions. All restorative procedures were performed by one operator and the restorations were examined by two evaluators according to the FDI criteria at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. Patients’ satisfaction about the preparation methods was evaluated with questionnaire. Pearson Chi-Square test was used for statistical analyze(p=0.05).
Results: After 12 months, recall rate was 100%. All restorations were scored as 1 for all esthetic properties except marginal staining. Twelve restorations from Laser/Silorane group and 11 restorations from Bur/Silorane group, 15 restorations from Laser/Kalore group and 12 restorations from Bur/Kalore group were scored as 2 for marginal staining. Ten restorations from Laser/Silorane group and 11 restorations from Bur/Silorane group; 15 restorations from Laser/Kalore and 11 restorations from Bur/Kalore group were scored as 2 for marginal adaptation. No significant differences were found among the four groups in marginal adaptation and marginal staining (p>0.05). Only 2 patients(11.1%) reported slight discomfort during laser preparation, whereas 9 patients(50%) were uncomfortable with bur preparation(p<0.05).
Conclusions: Twelve month evaluation of both materials used for the restoration of Er,Cr:YSGG laser or bur prepared Class I cavities exhibited a similar and clinically acceptable performance. Er,Cr:YSGG laser was considered more comfortable and painless compared with bur preparation.