One-Year Clinical Evaluation of Composite Restorations in Posterior Teeth: Effect of Adhesive Systems

Sundfeld, Renato Herman; Scatolin, Renata Siqueira; Oliveira, Fernanda Garcia de; Machado, Sandro Lemos; Sundefeld, Maria Lúcia Marçal Mazza

doi:10.2341/10-375-c

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…21 At the end of one year, composite resin restorations using either adhesive system showed equally satisfactory results. In another study, the performance of Filtek Supreme was found to be satisfactory even when used with a self-etch adhesive, Adper Prompt-L-Pop, over 15 months of clinical service.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Three-year Clinical Evaluation of Different Restorative Resins in Class I Restorations

Yazici

Ustunkol

Özgünaltay

et al. 2014

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Except for the better marginal adaptation that packable resin composite showed, siloranebased restorative, nanofilled resin, and packable resin composite resulted in similar clinical performance in restoring Class I cavities after 3 years. SUMMARYThe aim of the present study was to evaluate the three-year clinical performance of a nanofilled resin composite, a packable resin composite, and silorane-based resin restorations in Class I occlusal cavities. Twenty-eight patients with at least three similar-sized occlusal lesions in molar teeth participated in the study. A total of 84 Class I occlusal restorations were placed: 28 with nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Supreme), 28 with packable resin composite (P60), and 28 with silorane-based resin (Filtek Silorane). Filtek Supreme and P60 were used with their respective etch-and-rinse adhesive system, Adper Single Bond 2, and Filtek Silorane was used with its respective self-etch adhesive, Filtek Silorane Adhesive. All restorations were placed by the same operator. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, at six months, and annually for three years according to modified US Public Health Service criteria by two calibrated examiners who did not know which restorative resin had been used. The three restorative materials for each category were compared using the v 2 test at a significance level of 0.05. Cochran's Q test was used to compare the changes across the five time points for each restorative material. McNemar's test followed by Bonferroni adjustment was used when significance differences were found. At the end of the three years, 60 restorations were evaluated in 20 patients, with a recall rate of 71.4%. The retention rate was 100% for all restorative resins. Eight restorations from the P60 group, ten from the Filtek Supreme group, and nine from the Filtek Silorane group were rated Bravo for marginal discoloration. For marginal adapta-

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Three-year Clinical Evaluation of Different Restorative Resins in Class I Restorations

Yazici

Ustunkol

Özgünaltay

et al. 2014

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a recent study, the clinical performance of Filtek Supreme used with either etch-and-rinse or self-etch adhesive in Class I cavities was evaluated. 21 At the end of one year, composite resin restorations using either adhesive system showed equally satisfactory results. In another study, the performance of Filtek Supreme was found to be satisfactory even when used with a self-etch adhesive, Adper Prompt-L-Pop, over 15 months of clinical service.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Three-year Clinical Evaluation of Different Restorative Resins in Class I Restorations

Yazici¹,

Ustunkol²,

Ozgunaltay³

et al. 2013

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the three-year clinical performance of a nanofilled resin composite, a packable resin composite, and silorane-based resin restorations in Class I occlusal cavities. Twenty-eight patients with at least three similar-sized occlusal lesions in molar teeth participated in the study. A total of 84 Class I occlusal restorations were placed: 28 with nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Supreme), 28 with packable resin com

show abstract

“…Due to the lower polymerization contraction of silorane composite when compared to the methacrylate composite, the interface is exposed in a significant way in a lower stress level, and silorane also presented lower adhesion to Strepococcus than conventional methacrylate ( Buergers et al, 2009 ). The evolution of adhesive systems should also be highlighted, aiming at smaller postoperative sensitivities and technical simplification, especially in the use of self-conditioning adhesives ( Sundfeld et al, 2016 , Baracco et al, 2016 ). However, more studies about this new and promising silorane polymeric system are necessary, as well as on different adhesive systems currently in use, in order to allow a good guidance to the surgeon dentist regarding the resinous material and more appropriate bond system for each case.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of microleakage and marginal gap presented by new polymeric systems in class V restorations: An in vitro study

Pereira

Vidotti

Júnior

et al. 2021

The Saudi Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Evaluating the contraction of polymerization effect of silorane-based composite on dental interface in enamel. Materials and Methods Eighty class V cavities were confectioned in forty extracted molar teeth and restored with different combinations of resinous-based and bond system. They were divided into the following groups: (G1) three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive system and methacrylate-based resin, (G2) two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive system and methacrylate-based resin, (G3) Filtek P-90 self-conditioning adhesive system and methacrylate-based resin, (G4) Adper SE Plus self-conditioning adhesive system and methacrylate-based resin, (G5) three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive system and silorane-based resin, (G6) two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive system and silorane-based resin, (G7) Filtek P-90 self-conditioning adhesive system and silorane-based resin, (G8) Adper SE Plus self-conditioning adhesive system and silorane-based resin. Results Group 7 showed lower marginal leakage when compared with all other groups (p = 0.001). Conclusions The results allows suggesting that silorane-based resinous system is adequate to promote more satisfactory marginal sealing than any other combination, since the system is combined with its own bond system.

show abstract

One-Year Clinical Evaluation of Composite Restorations in Posterior Teeth: Effect of Adhesive Systems

Cited by 12 publications

References 19 publications

Three-year Clinical Evaluation of Different Restorative Resins in Class I Restorations

Three-year Clinical Evaluation of Different Restorative Resins in Class I Restorations

Three-year Clinical Evaluation of Different Restorative Resins in Class I Restorations

Analysis of microleakage and marginal gap presented by new polymeric systems in class V restorations: An in vitro study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About