IADR Abstract Archives
Clinical Evaluation of a Silorane-Based and a Methacrylate-Based Resin Composite in Class II Restorations: 24-Month Results
Objectives: To compare the 24-month clinical performance of two different composites in Class II slot restorations.
Methods: Thirty-seven patients (27 female and 10 male) having at least two approximal carious lesions were enrolled in the study. A total of 116 teeth (58 pairs) were restored either with a methacrylate-based packable resin composite, X-tra fil and its self-etch adhesive Futurabond NR (VOCO) or a silorane-based low-shrinkage resin composite, Filtek Silorane and its self-etch adhesive Silorane Adhesive System (3M ESPE,) by tossing a coin. All materials were applied following the manufacturers’ instructions. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and at 6-, 12- and 24-month recalls by two calibrated examiners, who were unaware of which resin composite had been used according to the modified USPHS criterias. The survival rates of Silorane and X-tra fil restorations were calculated by Pearson chi square test. The comparison of resin composites for each category was performed with the Cochran Q and Friedman tests. Pairwise comparisons were evaluated by Bonferroni adjusted McNemar’s test (p<0.05).
Results: After 24-month, no statistically significant differences were found between two restorative materials for all evaluated criteria.
Conclusions: Both Silorane-based and methacrylate-based resin composites showed clinically acceptable performance in Class II slot restorations after 24-month.
Methods: Thirty-seven patients (27 female and 10 male) having at least two approximal carious lesions were enrolled in the study. A total of 116 teeth (58 pairs) were restored either with a methacrylate-based packable resin composite, X-tra fil and its self-etch adhesive Futurabond NR (VOCO) or a silorane-based low-shrinkage resin composite, Filtek Silorane and its self-etch adhesive Silorane Adhesive System (3M ESPE,) by tossing a coin. All materials were applied following the manufacturers’ instructions. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and at 6-, 12- and 24-month recalls by two calibrated examiners, who were unaware of which resin composite had been used according to the modified USPHS criterias. The survival rates of Silorane and X-tra fil restorations were calculated by Pearson chi square test. The comparison of resin composites for each category was performed with the Cochran Q and Friedman tests. Pairwise comparisons were evaluated by Bonferroni adjusted McNemar’s test (p<0.05).
Results: After 24-month, no statistically significant differences were found between two restorative materials for all evaluated criteria.
Conclusions: Both Silorane-based and methacrylate-based resin composites showed clinically acceptable performance in Class II slot restorations after 24-month.