Comparison of laser- and bur-prepared class I cavities restored with two different low-shrinkage composite resins: a randomized, controlled 60-month clinical trial
- 16 Downloads
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.
Low-shrinkage composites showed similar clinical performance in class I cavities prepared with a laser or conventional bur after a 60-month observation period.
KeywordsLow-shrinkage Composite resins Er,Cr:YSGG laser
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191942 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.08.188 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.11.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Mount GJ, Ngo H (2000) Minimal intervention: a new concept for operative dentistry. Quintessence Int 31(8):527–533Google Scholar
- 20.Osborne JW, Summitt JB (1998) Extension for prevention: is it relevant today? Am J Dent 11(4):189–196Google Scholar
- 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.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
- 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
- 32.Waterlase Dentistry. California: Biolase Technology Inc; 2009 (cited 2010 Mar 31). Available from: http://www.biolase.com/turbo
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 54.Terry DA, Leinfelder KF, Blatz MB (2009) A comparison of advanced resin monomer technologies. Dent Today 28(7):122–123Google Scholar
- 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