The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 3 ( May-June, 2012 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

The Short-term Clinical Performance of a Silorane-based Resin Composite in the Proximal Contacts of Class II Restorations

Fabiana Santos Gonçalves, Carolina Dolabela Leal Castro, Audrey Cristina Bueno, Amanda Beatriz Dadah Aniceto de Freitas, Alysson Nogueira Moreira, Cláudia Silami Magalhães

Citation Information : Gonçalves FS, Castro CD, Bueno AC, de Freitas AB, Moreira AN, Magalhães CS. The Short-term Clinical Performance of a Silorane-based Resin Composite in the Proximal Contacts of Class II Restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012; 13 (3):251-256.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1132

Published Online: 01-06-2012

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2012; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the proximal contact of a silorane-based resin composite with a conventional methacrylate-based resin composite in class II restorations after a 6 months follow-up period.

Materials and methods

After obtaining informed consent, 33 patients were randomly allocated into a test group (Filtek P90/Adhesive System-3M ESPE) or control group (Filtek P60/ Adper SE Plus-3M ESPE), and 100 direct resin composite restorations (n = 50) were placed. A single operator performed the cavities and restorations. After rubber dam placement, a metal matrix and wooden wedge were placed. The restorative systems were applied according to the manufacturer's instructions. After 1 week, the restorations were finished and polished. The proximal contacts were assessed blindly and independently by two calibrated examiners (kW = 0.8) at the baseline and after 6 months according to a three-step grading criteria. Data were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U-test and Wilcoxon signed Rank tests (α = 0.05). Results: After 6 months, 96% of the restoration contacts were present for evaluation. The frequencies of restorations classified as Bravo in control and test groups were 6 and 8% at the baseline, and 6.25 and 12.75% after 6 months. No significant difference was found between the restorative materials (p > 0.05; Mann-Whitney U-test) neither between baseline and 6 months period (p > 0.05; Wilcoxon signed Rank tests).

Conclusion

Both materials performed satisfactorily over 6 months follow-up period.

Clinical significance

The short-term clinical performance of a silorane-based resin composite in the proximal contacts of class II restorations was similar to the well-known methacrylate-based resin composite.

How to cite this article

Gonçalves FS, Castro CDL, Bueno AC, de Freitas ABDA, Moreira AN, Magalhães CS. The Shortterm Clinical Performance of a Silorane-based Resin Composite in the Proximal Contacts of Class II Restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012;13(3):251-256.


PDF Share
  1. Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 2007;11:5-33.
  2. Nanohybrid vs fine hybrid composite in class II cavities: Clinical results and margin analyses after 4 years. Dent Mater 2009;25:750-59.
  3. Do condensable composites help to achieve better proximal contacts? Dent Mater 2001;17:533-41.
  4. Class II composite restorations with metalic and translucent matrices: 2-year follow-up findings. J Dent 2007;35:231-37.
  5. Influence of interdental contacts on periodontal status. J Periodontol 1980;51:445-49.
  6. Influence of matrix systems on proximal contact tightness of 2-and 3-surface posterior composite restorations in vivo. J Dent 2011;39:386-90.
  7. A randomized clinical trial on proximal contacts of posterior composites. J Dent 2006;34:292-97.
  8. The long-term effect of a composite resin restoration on proximal contact tightness. J Dent 2007;104-08.
  9. Evaluation of proximal contact tightness of class II resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 2010;35:37-43.
  10. Siloranes in dental composites. Dent Mater 2005;21:68-74.
  11. Comparing microleakage and the layering methods of silorane-based resin composite in wide class II MOD cavities. Oper Dent 2009;34:578-85.
  12. Setting characteristics and cavity adaptation of low-shrinking resin composites. Dent Mater 2009;25:1509-16.
  13. Properties of silorane-based dental resins and composites containing a stress-reducing monomer. Dent Mater 2007;23:1011-17.
  14. Macro-, micro-and nano-mechanical investigations on silorane and methacrylate-based composites. Dent Mater 2009;25:810-19.
  15. Assessing the effect of composite formulation on polymerization stress. J Am Dent Assoc 2000;131:497-503.
  16. Physicomechanical evaluation of low-shrinkage dental nanocomposites based on silsesquioxane cores. Eur J Oral Sci 2007;115:230-38.
  17. In vitro cuspal deflection and microleakage of maxillary premolars restored with novel low-shrink dental composites. Dent Mater 2005;21:324-35.
  18. Variation of approximall tooth contact tightness with postural change. J Dent Res 1990;60(11):1776-79.
  19. Factors influencing proximal dental contact strengths. Eur J Oral Sci 2000;108:368-77.
  20. Clinical evaluation of proximal contacts of class II esthetic direct restorations. Quint Int 2004;35:785-89.
  21. Effects of metallic or translucent matrices for class II composite restorations: 4-year clinical follow-up finings. Clin Oral Investig 2011;15:39-47.
  22. A clinical study on interdental separation techniques. Oper Dent 2007;32:207-11.
  23. Clinical performance and marginal adaptation of class II direct and semidirect composite restorations over 3.5 years in vivo. J Dent 2005;33:499-507.
  24. Marginal adaptation of a low-shrinkage silorane-based composite: 1-year randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 2011;15:291-95.
  25. Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. US DHEW document, US Public Health Service 790244, Printing Office, San Francisco, 1-42 (and reprinted as Cvar J, Ryge G. Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. Clinical Oral Investig 2005,9:215-52.
  26. Alveolar bone loss due to open interproximal contacts in periodontal disease. J Periodontol 1981;52:447-50.
  27. Relationship between proximal tooth open contacts and periodontal disease. J Periodontol 1983;54:529-33.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.