IADR Abstract Archives
Clinical evaluation of silorane and nano-hybrid resin composite restorations in Class II up to 3 years
Objectives: This study evaluated the clinical performance of silorane-based resin composite (SC) versus nano-hybrid resin composite (NHC) in Class II restorations.
Methods: Between January-2012 and Febuary-2013, a total of 29 patients (8 male, 21 female, mean age: 24±5 years old), received 29 pairs of restorations using both SC (Filtek Silorane, 3M ESPE) and NHC (Filtek Z550, 3M ESPE) materials and were followed up until February 2015. Restorations were performed using the corresponding adhesive resins according to the manufacturers’ instructions by one operator. Two calibrated independent examiners evaluated the restorations at 1 week, 6 months and thereafter annually using modified USPHS criteria for anatomic form, marginal adaptation, color match, surface roughness, marginal discoloration, secondary caries, post-operative sensitivity and gingival health. The changes in the USPHS parameters were analyzed with McNemar test (alpha= 0.05).
Results: Mean observation period was 31.2 months. Marginal adaptation was the only parameter that showed the significant difference being worse for SC than that of NHC (p=0.012). At the final recall, 17 restorations from SC and 5 from NHC group received Score 1 (explorer catches). These scores resulted in statistically significant differences between baseline and the final recall for the SC (p<0.001) but not for NHC (p>0.05).
Conclusions: Both nano-hybrid and silorane-based resin composite performed similar in Class II restorations up to 3 years except for marginal adaptation, where the latter demonstrated significant deterioration at final recall compared to baseline.
Methods: Between January-2012 and Febuary-2013, a total of 29 patients (8 male, 21 female, mean age: 24±5 years old), received 29 pairs of restorations using both SC (Filtek Silorane, 3M ESPE) and NHC (Filtek Z550, 3M ESPE) materials and were followed up until February 2015. Restorations were performed using the corresponding adhesive resins according to the manufacturers’ instructions by one operator. Two calibrated independent examiners evaluated the restorations at 1 week, 6 months and thereafter annually using modified USPHS criteria for anatomic form, marginal adaptation, color match, surface roughness, marginal discoloration, secondary caries, post-operative sensitivity and gingival health. The changes in the USPHS parameters were analyzed with McNemar test (alpha= 0.05).
Results: Mean observation period was 31.2 months. Marginal adaptation was the only parameter that showed the significant difference being worse for SC than that of NHC (p=0.012). At the final recall, 17 restorations from SC and 5 from NHC group received Score 1 (explorer catches). These scores resulted in statistically significant differences between baseline and the final recall for the SC (p<0.001) but not for NHC (p>0.05).
Conclusions: Both nano-hybrid and silorane-based resin composite performed similar in Class II restorations up to 3 years except for marginal adaptation, where the latter demonstrated significant deterioration at final recall compared to baseline.