Clinical Evaluation of a Siloraneand a Methacrylate-Based Resin Composite in Class II Restorations: 24-Month Results


Karaman E., Yazici A. R., Ozgunaltay G., Ustunkol I., Berber A.

OPERATIVE DENTISTRY, sa.4, 2017 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Basım Tarihi: 2017
  • Doi Numarası: 10.2341/15-286-c
  • Dergi Adı: OPERATIVE DENTISTRY
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus
  • Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Objective: To compare the 24-month clinical performance of two different resin composites in class II slot restorations. Methods and Materials: Thirty-seven patients having at least two approximal carious lesions were enrolled in the study. A total of 116 teeth (58 pairs) were restored with either a siloranebased composite (Filtek Silorane) and its selfetch adhesive (Silorane Adhesive System, 3M ESPE) or a methacrylate-based packable resin composite (X-tra Fil) and its self-etch adhesive (Futurabond NR, VOCO GmbH) according to the toss of a coin. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and at six-, 12-, and 24month recalls by two calibrated examiners according to the modified US Public Health Service criteria. The comparison of the two restorative materials for each category was performed with the Pearson chi-square test. Within group differences of the materials at different recall times were compared using the Cochran Q and Friedman tests. Bonferroniadjusted McNemar test was used when significant difference was found (p<0.05). Results: After 24 months, no statistically significant differences were found between the two restorative materials for the criteria evaluated. Conclusions: Both silorane-and methacrylatebased resin composites showed clinically acceptable performance in class II slot restorations after 24 months.