Clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage resin composite in endodontically treated premolars: 3-year follow-up
- 37 Downloads
This study compared the 3-year clinical performance of a low-shrinkage silorane-based composite material with that of a methacrylate-based composite material in the restoration of endodontically treated premolar teeth.
Materials and methods
A total of 70 patients requiring a Class II composite-resin restoration of a premolar tooth following root-canal treatment participated in the study. Cavities were restored with either a silorane-based restorative (Filtek Silorane + Silorane System Adhesive) or a methacrylate-based restorative (Filtek Z250 + Clearfil SE Bond) system applied according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Restorations were evaluated by two blinded observers at five different time intervals (baseline; 6 months; 1, 2, and 3 years) according to modified USPHS criteria. Pearson’s chi-square tests were used to examine differences in the clinical performance of the materials (retention, color match, marginal discoloration, secondary caries, anatomical form, marginal adaptation, and surface roughness), and Friedman and Wilcoxon tests were used to compare changes between baseline and each recall time, with a level of 0.05 considered statistically significant.
After 3 years, no statistically significant differences in clinical performance were observed between the two materials (p > 0.05). Intra-system comparisons revealed a statistically significant deterioration in color match, marginal discoloration, anatomical form, marginal adaptation, and surface roughness scores after 3 years for both systems. Although the difference was not significant at 3 years of follow-up, the level of deterioration in marginal adaptation and surface roughness was greater for the Filtek Silorane restoration than for the Filtek Z250 restoration at the 1 year follow-up (p > 0.05).
Restorations of both materials were clinically acceptable after 3 years. The Filtek Silorane system did not appear to offer any clinical advantages over the methacrylate-based system when used in the restoration of Class II cavities in endodontically treated premolars.
The restoration of endodontically treated premolars with minor or moderate loss of tooth structure can be directly performed either with silorane or methacrylate-based composite resins.
KeywordsClass II restoration Endodontic treatment Randomized clinical trial Resin-based composite Silorane
The study had no funding source.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Ondokuz Mayis University Human Ethics Committee (OMU-TAEK 2013/227) and was conducted in line with the Helsinki Declaration’s ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.
All subjects gave their written, informed consent for participation.
- 2.Shafiei F, Tavangar MS, Ghahramani Y, Fattah Z (2014) Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored by silorane-based composite with or without fiber or nano-ionomer. J Adv Prosthodont 6(3):200–206. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2014.6.3.200 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 5.Nothdurft FP, Seidel E, Gebhart F, Naumann M, Motter PJ, Pospiech PR (2008) The fracture behavior of premolar teeth with class II cavities restored by both direct composite restorations and endodontic post systems. J Dent 36(6):444–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2008.03.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Heydecke G, Butz F, Strub JR (2001) Fracture strength and survival rate of endodontically treated maxillary incisors with approximal cavities after restoration with different post and core systems: an in-vitro study. J Dent 29(6):427–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(01)00038-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Soares PV, Santos-Filho PC, Queiroz EC, Araújo TC, Campos RE, Araújo CA, Soares CJ (2008) Fracture resistance and stres distribution in endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with composite resin. J Prosthodont 17(2):114–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00258.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Gao BT, Lin H, Zheng G, Xu YX, Yang JL (2012) Comparison between a silorane-based composite and methacrylate-based composites: shrinkage characteristics, thermal properties, gel point and vitrification point. Dent Mater J 31(1):76–85. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2011-147 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Mannocci F, Bertelli E, Sherriff M, Watson TF, Ford TR (2002) Three-year clinical comparison of survival of endodontically treated teeth restored with either full cast coverage or with direct composite restoration. J Prosthet Dent 88(3):297–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01525.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Soares PV, Santos-Filho PC, Martins LR, Soares CJ (2008) Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part I: fracture resistance and fracture mode. J Prosthet Dent 99(1):30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60006-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 37.Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, Heintze SD, Mjör IA, Peters M, Rousson V, Randall R, Schmalz G, Tyas M, Vanherle G (2007) Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 11(1):5–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-006-0095-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar