Advertisement

Clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage resin composite in endodontically treated premolars: 3-year follow-up

  • Nihan Gönülol
  • Elif Kalyoncuoğlu
  • Ertan Ertaş
  • Tuğba Misilli
Original Article
  • 67 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

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.

Results

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).

Conclusion

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.

Clinical relevance

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.

Keywords

Class II restoration Endodontic treatment Randomized clinical trial Resin-based composite Silorane 

Notes

Funding

The study had no funding source.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

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.

Informed consent

All subjects gave their written, informed consent for participation.

References

  1. 1.
    Nagasiri R, Chitmongkolsuk S (2005) Long-term survival of endodontically treated molars without crown coverage: a retrospective cohort study. J Prosthet Dent 93(2):164–170.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.11.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 3.
    Taha NA, Maghaireh GA, Bagheri R, Abu Holy A (2015) Fracture strength of root filled premolar teeth restored with silorane and methacrylate-based resin composite. J Dent 43(6):735–741.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.01.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aquilino SA, Caplan DJ (2002) Relationship between crown placement and the survival of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 87(3):256–263.  https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.122014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 6.
    Butz F, Lennon AM, Heydecke G, Strub JR (2001) Survival rate and fracture strength of endodontically treated maxillary incisors with moderate defects restored with different post-and-core systems: an in vitrostudy. Int J Prosthodont 14(1):58–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. 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
  9. 9.
    Taha NA, Palamara JE, Messer HH (2009) Cuspal deflection, strain and microleakage of endodontically treated premolar teeth restored with direct resin composites. J Dent 37(9):724–730.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2009.05.027 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meredith N, Setchell DJ (1997) In vitro measurement of cuspal strain and displacement in composite restored teeth. J Dent 25(3–4):331–337.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(96)00047-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schmidt M, Dige I, Kirkevang LL, Vaeth M, Hørsted-Bindslev P (2015) Five-year evaluation of a low-shrinkage Silorane resin composite material: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 19(2):245–251.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1238-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weinmann W, Thalacker C, Guggenberger R (2005) Siloranes in dental composites. Dent Mater 21(1):68–74.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2004.10.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burke FJ, Crisp RJ, James A, Mackenzie L, Pal A, Sands P, Thompson O, Palin WM (2011) Two year clinical evaluation of a low-shrink resin composite material in UK general dental practices. Dent Mater 27(7):622–630.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.02.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 15.
    Yamazaki PC, Bedran-Russo AK, Pereira PN, Wsift EJ Jr (2006) Microleakage evaluation of a new low-shrinkage composite restorative material. Oper Dent 31(6):670–676.  https://doi.org/10.2341/05-129 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Papadogiannis D, Kakaboura A, Palaghias G, Eliades G (2009) Setting characteristics and cavity adaptation of low-shrinking resin composites. Dent Mater 25(12):1509–1516.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.06.022 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bouillaguet S, Gamba J, Forchelet J, Krejci I, Wataha JC (2006) Dynamics of composite polymerization mediates the development of cuspal strain. Dent Mater 22(10):896–902.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.11.017 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 19.
    Walter R, Boushell LW, Heymann HO, Ritter AV, Sturdevant JR, Wilder AD Jr, Chung Y, Swift EJ Jr (2014) Three-year clinical evaluation of a silorane composite resin. J Esthet Restor Dent 26(3):179–190.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12077 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 21.
    Reel DC, Mitchell RJ (1989) Fracture resistance of teeth restored with class II composite restorations. J Prosthet Dent 61(2):177–180.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(89)90369-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ausiello P, De Gee AJ, Rengo S, Davidson CL (1997) Fracture resistance of endodontically-treated premolars adhesively restored. Am J Dent 10(5):237–241PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McCullock AJ, Smith BG (1986) In vitro studies of cusp reinforcement with adhesive restorative material. Br Dent J 161(12):450–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wendt SL Jr (1991) Microleakage and cusp fracture resistance of heat-treated composite resin inlays. Am J Dent 4(1):10–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mahmoud SH, Ali AK, Hegazi HA (2014) A three-year prospective randomized study of silorane- and methacrylate-based composite restorative systems in class II restorations. J Adhes Dent 16(3):285–292.  https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a31939 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ilie N, Hickel R (2006) Silorane-based dental composite: behavior and abilities. Dent Mater J 25(3):445–454.  https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.25.445 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Magno MB, Nascimento GC, Rocha YS, Ribeiro BD, Loretto SC, Maia LC (2016) Silorane-based composite resin restorations are not better than conventional composites—a meta-analysis of clinical studies. J Adhes Dent 18(5):375–386.  https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a36916 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gonçalves FS, Leal CD, Bueno AC, Freitas AB, Moreira AN, Magalhães CS (2013) A double-blind randomized clinical trial of a silorane-based resin composite in class 2 restorations: 18-month follow-up. Am J Dent 26(2):93–98PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yazici AR, Ustunkol I, Ozgunaltay G, Dayangac B (2014) Three-year clinical evaluation of different restorative resins in class I restorations. Oper Dent 39(3):248–245.  https://doi.org/10.2341/13-221-C CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Baracco B, Fuentes MV, Ceballos L (2016) Five-year clinical performance of a silorane- vs a methacrylate-based composite combined with two different adhesive approaches. Clin Oral Investig 20(5):991–1001.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1591-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Takahashi H, Finger WJ, Wegner K, Utterodt A, Komatsu M, Wöstmann B, Balkenhol M (2010) Factors influencing marginal cavity adaptation of nanofiller containing resin composite restorations. Dent Mater 26(12):1166–1175.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.08.189 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y, Mine A, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL (2011) State of the art of self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater 27(1):17–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.023 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lopes GC, Marson FC, Vieira LCC, de Andrada MAC, Baratieri LN (2004) Composite bond strength to enamel with self-etching primers. Oper Dent 29(4):424–429PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hayashi M, Wilson NH (2003) Marginal deterioration as a predictor of failure of a posterior composite. Eur J Oral Sci 111(2):155–162.  https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0722.2003.00020.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Baracco B, Perdigão J, Cabrera E, Ceballos L (2013) Two-year clinical performance of a low-shrinkage composite in posterior restorations. Oper Dent 38(6):591–600.  https://doi.org/10.2341/12-364-C CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Attia RM, Etman WM, Genaid TM (2014) One year clinical follow up of a silorane-based versus a methacrylate-based composite resin. Tanta Dent J 11:12–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tdj.2014.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 38.
    Köhler B, Rasmusson CG, Odman P (2000) A five-year clinical evaluation of class II composite resin restorations. J Dent 28(2):111–1116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(99)00059-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nihan Gönülol
    • 1
  • Elif Kalyoncuoğlu
    • 2
  • Ertan Ertaş
    • 1
  • Tuğba Misilli
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative DentistryOndokuz Mayis UniversitySamsunTurkey
  2. 2.Faculty of Dentistry, Department of EndodonticsOndokuz Mayis UniversitySamsunTurkey
  3. 3.Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative DentistryÇanakkale Onsekizmart UniversityÇanakkaleTurkey

Personalised recommendations