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

Karaman, Emel; Yazici, Arife; Özgünaltay, Gül; Ustunkol, I; Berber, A

doi:10.2341/15-286-c

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two studies with the same first author 17,18 were excluded from the review because the authors assessed direct and indirect restorations but did not make use of a control group with a direct traditional restorative material for the comparison with nanofilled/nanohybrid composites. Two studies were excluded because they did not consider a control group with a microhybrid composite: in the study of Karaman and others, 19 the authors com-pared a nanofilled composite with a flowable nanofilled composite, without further control groups; the study of Tü rkü n and Celik 20 used a polyacid modified resin composite (Dyract eXtra, Dentsply, York, PA, USA) as sole control. Three other studies were not randomized.…”

Section: Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Nanofilled/Nanohybrid Composites Allow for Better Clinical Performance of Direct Restorations Than Traditional Microhybrid Composites? A Systematic Review

Angerame

Biasi

2018

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review was carried out to assess the clinical effectiveness of nanofilled and nanohybrid composites used for direct restorations in comparison with microhybrid composites. The guidelines for the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses were followed. A search of articles published from July 1996 to February 2017 was performed in PubMed, SciVerse Scopus, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences, the Scientific Electronic Library Online, and the Cochrane Library. The present review selected only randomized controlled trials comparing the clinical performance of a nanofilled or nanohybrid composite for direct restorations with that of a microhybrid composite. The research found 201 studies. Twenty-one articles fulfilled the criteria of the present review. However, the included studies were characterized by great methodological diversities. As a general trend, nanofilled and nanohybrid composites were found to be capable of clinical performance, marginal quality, and resistance to wear similar to that of traditional composites without showing improved surface characteristics. The risk of bias of included studies was judged unclear or high. The clinical performance of nanofilled/nanohybrid composites was found to be comparable to that of traditional composites in the posterior area. The data concerning anterior and cervical restorations were insufficient. With regard to the esthetic properties, there is a compelling need for studies on anterior teeth in which the operators are kept unaware of the restorative material. Nanofilled/nanohybrid composites seem to be a valid alternative to traditional microhybrid composites, and at the moment, there is low-level evidence attesting a lack of their superiority.

show abstract

Section: Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Nanofilled/Nanohybrid Composites Allow for Better Clinical Performance of Direct Restorations Than Traditional Microhybrid Composites? A Systematic Review

Angerame

Biasi

2018

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2). Similarly, another study included HFFC, and paste-type composites reported the same clinical performance on NCCL after two years of follow-up [39]. Other clinical research assessed the success of Class II restorations restored with HFFC and paste-type composite regarding the FDI criteria.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Assessment of a highly-filled flowable composite for the repair of indirect composites

Kanar,

Meşeli,

Korkut

et al. 2024

J Oral Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To compare the shear-bond-strength (SBS) of a highly-filledflowable composite (HFFC) and a paste-type composite for indirect composite repair and to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments (ST), concerning the composite repair protocol. Methods: Eighty-four 5 × 5 × 2 mm cylindrical specimens were prepared using Gradia Plus and SR Nexco indirect composite materials. The samples were thermocycled 5,000 times. According to the ST, the samples were divided into three groups (control, bur, and air-abrasion). After ST, the sample subgroups were divided into two sub-groups according to the repair material: paste-type composite and HFFC (n = 7). Another 5,000 cycles of aging were performed. SBS values were measured with a universal testing machine (Shimadzu, Japan). Shapiro-Wilk, 3-way ANOVA, and Tukey HSD test were used to evaluate data (P < 0.05). Results: ST was considered significant for SBS (P < 0.001). The mean values were (13.9 ± 5.7), (17.0 ± 6.4), (20.4 ± 4.9) MPa for the control, bur and phosphoric acid, and air-abrasion groups, respectively. The surface treatment and repair material interaction was considered significant for SBS (P = 0.044). The highest mean bond strength (24.5 ± 4.5 MPa) was observed for the interaction of SR Nexco, air-abrasion ST, and HFFC repair. Conclusion:Repairing with HFFC following air abrasion might enhance the SBS for indirect composite restorations.

show abstract

“…To date, only few in‐vivo data on Class V restorations involving composites of different viscosities or comparisons of different preparation designs have been published (Cieplik et al, 2017; Correia et al, 2018; Karaman, Yazici, Ozgunaltay, & Dayangac, 2012; Li, Jepsen, Albers, & Eberhard, 2006; Mullejans et al, 2003; Szesz, Parreiras, Martini, Reis, & Loguercio, 2017). Therefore, the aim of this prospective randomized clinical study was to investigate the influence of dentin surface pretreatment (cleaning vs. roughening vs. groove preparation) and the application of a flowable composite on the clinical long‐term stability of cervical restorations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Composite restorations placed in non‐carious cervical lesions—Which cavity preparation is clinically reliable?

Lührs

Jacker‐Guhr

Günay

et al. 2020

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this in-vivo study was to evaluate the clinical performance of restorations placed in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs), using different cavity preparation designs, after 7.7 years. A total of 85 NCCLs with coronal margins in enamel and cervical margins in dentin were randomly assigned to the following treatment protocols: dentin surface cleaning, dentin surface roughening with round bur plus flowable composite, dentin surface roughening/cervical groove preparation with round bur, dentin surface roughening/cervical groove preparation with round bur plus flowable composite. After enamel beveling and selective enamel etching, the defects were restored with composite. The restorations were assessed by two independent, calibrated and blinded investigators, using modified USPHS criteria. At 7 years (7.7 (± 0.35)), a total of 64 restorations (75.3%) were available for follow-up examination. The total retention rate, irrespective of the test groups, was 82.8%. Restorations placed without any preparation showed the highest loss rate (27.8%). Esthetic appearance, marginal adaptation, anatomic form and marginal discoloration did not differ significantly between the groups. Composites are long-term stable materials for restoring NCCLs. Restorations placed without any dentin preparation (cavity cleaning only) showed the highest loss rate.

show abstract

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

Abstract: Both silorane- and methacrylate-based resin composites showed clinically acceptable performance in class II slot restorations after 24 months.

Cited by 5 publications

References 22 publications

Do Nanofilled/Nanohybrid Composites Allow for Better Clinical Performance of Direct Restorations Than Traditional Microhybrid Composites? A Systematic Review

Do Nanofilled/Nanohybrid Composites Allow for Better Clinical Performance of Direct Restorations Than Traditional Microhybrid Composites? A Systematic Review

Assessment of a highly-filled flowable composite for the repair of indirect composites

Composite restorations placed in non‐carious cervical lesions—Which cavity preparation is clinically reliable?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About