Comparison of laser- and bur-prepared class I cavities restored with two different low-shrinkage composite resins: a randomized, controlled 60-month clinical trial

  • OZ Fatma DilsadEmail author
  • Esra Ergin
  • Nuray Attar
  • Sevil Gurgan
Original Article



The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performances of two low-shrinkage composite resins (silorane-based and methacrylate-based) in class I cavities prepared by Er,Cr:YSGG laser or conventional diamond bur over 60 months.

Materials and method

Eighteen patients with four similar-sized occlusal lesions in molar teeth were included to the study. A total of 72 class I cavities were prepared either by Er,Cr:YSGG laser or conventional diamond bur. Cavities were restored with Filtek Silorane (3M-ESPE) (silorane-based) or Kalore (GC) (methacrylate-based) according to the manufacturers’ instructions. All restorative procedures were performed by one operator, and the restorations were examined by two evaluators according to the FDI criteria at baseline and at 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months. Patients’ satisfaction about the preparation methods was also evaluated with a questionnaire. Pearson chi-square test was used for statistical analysis (p = 0.05).


The 60-month recall rate was 88.8% and the retention rates for experimental groups were 100%. After 60 months, no significant differences were detected among groups, regarding marginal adaptation, marginal staining, surface staining, color match, and translucency. None of the restorations exhibited postoperative sensitivity or recurrence of caries.


Different preparation techniques had no effect on the longevity of restorations. The two low-shrinkage composite systems tested were both clinically acceptable after 60 months.

Clinical relevance

Low-shrinkage composites showed similar clinical performance in class I cavities prepared with a laser or conventional bur after a 60-month observation period.


Low-shrinkage Composite resins Er,Cr:YSGG laser 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Astvaldsdottir A, Dagerhamn J, van Dijken JW, Naimi-Akbar A, Sandborgh-Englund G, Tranaeus S, Nilsson M (2015) Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in adults - a systematic review. J Dent 43(8):934–954. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Demarco FF, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ (2012) Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater 28(1):87–101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schneider LF, Cavalcante LM, Silikas N (2010) Shrinkage stresses generated during resin-composite applications: a review. J Dent Biomech 2010(30):131630. Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Calheiros FC, Sadek FT, Braga RR, Cardoso PE (2004) Polymerization contraction stress of low-shrinkage composites and its correlation with microleakage in class V restorations. J Dent 32(5):407–412. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kruly PC, Giannini M, Pascotto RC, Tokubo LM, Suga USG, Marques ACR, Terada RSS (2018) Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: low polymerization shrinkage resin in comparison to methacrylate composite resin. PLoS One 13(2):0191942. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ferracane JL, Hilton TJ, Stansbury JW, Watts DC, Silikas N, Ilie N, Heintze S, Cadenaro M, Hickel R (2017) Academy of dental materials guidance-resin composites: part II-technique sensitivity (handling, polymerization, dimensional changes). Dent Mater 33(11):1171–1191. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lien W, Vandewalle KS (2010) Physical properties of a new silorane-based restorative system. Dent Mater 26(4):337–344. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wei YJ, Silikas N, Zhang ZT, Watts DC (2013) The relationship between cyclic hygroscopic dimensional changes and water sorption/desorption of self-adhering and new resin-matrix composites. Dent Mater 29(9):218–226. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Naoum SJ, Ellakwa A, Morgan L, White K, Martin FE, Lee IB (2012) Polymerization profile analysis of resin composite dental restorative materials in real time. J Dent 40(1):64–70. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weinmann W, Thalacker C, Guggenberger R (2005) Siloranes in dental composites. Dent Mater 21(1):68–74. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boaro LC, Goncalves F, Guimaraes TC, Ferracane JL, Versluis A, Braga RR (2010) Polymerization stress, shrinkage and elastic modulus of current low-shrinkage restorative composites. Dent Mater 26(12):1144–1150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tantbirojn D, Pfeifer CS, Braga RR, Versluis A (2011) Do low-shrink composites reduce polymerization shrinkage effects? J Dent Res 90(5):596–601. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gregor L, Bortolotto T, Feilzer AJ, Krejci I (2013) Shrinkage kinetics of a methacrylate- and a silorane-based resin composite: effect on marginal integrity. J Adhes Dent 15(3):245–250. Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Park JK, Lee GH, Kim JH, Park MG, Ko CC, Kim HI, Kwon YH (2014) Polymerization shrinkage, flexural and compression properties of low-shrinkage dental resin composites. Dent Mater J 33(1):104–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hoseinifar R, Mortazavi-Lahijani E, Mollahassani H, Ghaderi A (2017) One year clinical evaluation of a low shrinkage composite compared with a packable composite resin: a randomized clinical trial. J Dent (Tehran) 14(2):84–91Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ferracane JL (2005) Developing a more complete understanding of stresses produced in dental composites during polymerization. Dent Mater 21(1):36–42. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Braga RR, Boaro LC, Kuroe T, Azevedo CL, Singer JM (2006) Influence of cavity dimensions and their derivatives (volume and ‘C’ factor) on shrinkage stress development and microleakage of composite restorations. Dent Mater 22(9):818–823. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cunha LG, Alonso RC, Neves AC, de Goes MF, Ferracane JL, Sinhoreti MA (2009) Degree of conversion and contraction stress development of a resin composite irradiated using halogen and LED at two C-factor levels. Oper Dent 34(1):24–31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mount GJ, Ngo H (2000) Minimal intervention: a new concept for operative dentistry. Quintessence Int 31(8):527–533Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Osborne JW, Summitt JB (1998) Extension for prevention: is it relevant today? Am J Dent 11(4):189–196Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kato C, Taira Y, Suzuki M, Shinkai K, Katoh Y (2012) Conditioning effects of cavities prepared with an Er,Cr:YSGG laser and an air-turbine. Odontology 100(2):164–171. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kotlow LA (2004) Lasers in pediatric dentistry. Dent Clin N Am 48(4):889–922. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Verma SK, Maheshwari S, Singh RK, Chaudhari PK (2012) Laser in dentistry: an innovative tool in modern dental practice. Natl J Maxillofac Surg 3(2):124–132. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cvar JF, Ryge G (2005) Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971. Clin Oral Investig 9(4):215–232. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, Heintze SD, Mjor IA, Peters M, Rousson V, Randall R, Schmalz G, Tyas M, Vanherle G (2007) Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Science committee project 2/98--FDI world dental federation study design (part I) and criteria for evaluation (part II) of direct and indirect restorations including onlays and partial crowns. J Adhes Dent 9(1):121–147Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Moldes VL, Capp CI, Navarro RS, Matos AB, Youssef MN, Cassoni A (2009) In vitro microleakage of composite restorations prepared by Er:YAG/Er,Cr:YSGG lasers and conventional drills associated with two adhesive systems. J Adhes Dent 11(3):221–229Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shahabi S, Ebrahimpour L, Walsh LJ (2008) Microleakage of composite resin restorations in cervical cavities prepared by Er,Cr:YSGG laser radiation. Aust Dent J 53(2):172–175. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fattah T, Kazemi H, Fekrazad R, Assadian H, Kalhori KA (2013) Er,Cr:YSGG laser influence on microleakage of class V composite resin restorations. Lasers Med Sci 28(5):1257–1262. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Meister J, Franzen R, Forner K, Grebe H, Stanzel S, Lampert F, Apel C (2006) Influence of the water content in dental enamel and dentin on ablation with erbium YAG and erbium YSGG lasers. J Biomed Opt 11(3):34030. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bahrololoomi Z, Heydari E (2014) Assessment of tooth preparation via Er:YAG laser and bur on microleakage of dentin adhesives. J Dent (Tehran) 11(2):172–178Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sung EC, Chenard T, Caputo AA, Amodeo M, Chung EM, Rizoiu IM (2005) Composite resin bond strength to primary dentin prepared with Er, Cr:YSSG laser. J Clin Pediatr Dent 30(1):45–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Waterlase Dentistry. California: Biolase Technology Inc; 2009 (cited 2010 Mar 31). Available from:
  33. 33.
    Cardoso MV, De Munck J, Coutinho E, Ermis RB, Van Landuyt K, de Carvalho RC, Van Meerbeek B (2008) Influence of Er,Cr:YSGG laser treatment on microtensile bond strength of adhesives to enamel. Oper Dent 33(4):448–455. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Demirci M, Tuncer S, Sancakli HS, Tekce N, Baydemir C (2017) Clinical performance of different solvent-based dentin adhesives with nanofill or nanohybrid composites in class III restorations: five year results. Oper Dent 42(4):111–120. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Reis A, Loguercio AD (2009) A 36-month clinical evaluation of ethanol/water and acetone-based etch-and-rinse adhesives in non-carious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 34(4):384–391. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ritter AV, Swift EJ, Jr., Heymann HO, Sturdevant JR, Wilder AD, Jr. (2009) An eight-year clinical evaluation of filled and unfilled one-bottle dental adhesives. J Am Dent Assoc 140(1):28–37Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zander-Grande C, Amaral RC, Loguercio AD, Barroso LP, Reis A (2014) Clinical performance of one-step self-etch adhesives applied actively in cervical lesions: 24-month clinical trial. Oper Dent 39(3):228–238. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Burrow MF, Tyas MJ (2007) Clinical evaluation of three adhesive systems for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 32(1):11–15. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Burrow MF, Tyas MJ (2012) Comparison of two all-in-one adhesives bonded to non-carious cervical lesions--results at 3 years. Clin Oral Investig 16(4):1089–1094. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Usha C, Ramarao S, John BM, Rajesh P, Swatha S (2017) Evaluation of the shear bond strength of composite resin to wet and dry enamel using dentin bonding agents containing various solvents. J Clin Diagn Res 11(1):41–44. Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nikhil V, Singh V, Chaudhry S (2011) Comparative evaluation of bond strength of three contemporary self-etch adhesives: an ex vivo study. Contemp Clin Dent 2(2):94–97. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Amaral CM, Diniz AM, Arantes EB, Dos Santos GB, Noronha-Filho JD, da Silva EM (2016) Resin-dentin bond stability of experimental 4-META-based etch-and-rinse adhesives solvated by ethanol or acetone. J Adhes Dent 18(6):513–520. Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Poggio C, Beltrami R, Scribante A, Colombo M, Chiesa M (2015) Shear bond strength of one-step self-etch adhesives: pH influence. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 12(3):209–214Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yoshida Y, Van Meerbeek B, Nakayama Y, Snauwaert J, Hellemans L, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Wakasa K (2000) Evidence of chemical bonding at biomaterial-hard tissue interfaces. J Dent Res 79(2):709–714. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Van Meerbeek B (2005) A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res 84(2):118–132. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (2003) Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 28(3):215–235Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y, Mine A, J DM, KL VL (2011) State of the art of self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater 27(1):17–28. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Moura SK, Pelizzaro A, Dal Bianco K, de Goes MF, Loguercio AD, Reis A, Grande RH (2006) Does the acidity of self-etching primers affect bond strength and surface morphology of enamel? J Adhes Dent 8(2):75–83Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Atash R, Van den Abbeele A (2005) Bond strengths of eight contemporary adhesives to enamel and to dentine: an in vitro study on bovine primary teeth. Int J Paediatr Dent 15(4):264–273. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Soderholm KJ, Ottenga M, Nimmo S (2013) Four-year clinical evaluation of two self-etching dentin adhesives of different pH values used to restore non-retentive cervical lesions. Am J Dent 26(1):28–32Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Baracco B, Perdigao J, Cabrera E, Ceballos L (2013) Two-year clinical performance of a low-shrinkage composite in posterior restorations. Oper Dent 38(6):591–600. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Efes BG, Yaman BC, Gurbuz O, Gumustas B (2013) Randomized controlled trial of the 2-year clinical performance of a silorane-based resin composite in class 1 posterior restorations. Am J Dent 26(1):33–38Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Terry DA, Leinfelder KF, Blatz MB (2009) A comparison of advanced resin monomer technologies. Dent Today 28(7):122–123Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Schmidt M, Dige I, Kirkevang LL, Vaeth M, Horsted-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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ruttermann S, Kruger S, Raab WH, Janda R (2007) Polymerization shrinkage and hygroscopic expansion of contemporary posterior resin-based filling materials--a comparative study. J Dent 35(10):806–813. 10.1016/j.jdent.2007.07.014Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    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. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of DentistryHacettepe UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Associate Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of DentistryHacettepe UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of DentistryHacettepe UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations