OBJECTIVE: To compare the 24-month clinical performance of two different resin composites in class II slot restorations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-seven patients having at least two approximal carious lesions were enrolled in the study. A total of 116 teeth (58 pairs) were restored with either a silorane-based composite (Filtek Silorane) and its self-etch adhesive (Silorane Adhesive System, 3M ESPE) or a methacrylate-based packable resin composite (X-tra Fil) and its self-etch adhesive (Futurabond NR, VOCO GmbH) according to the toss of a coin. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and at six-, 12-, and 24-month recalls by two calibrated examiners according to the modified US Public Health Service criteria. The comparison of the two restorative materials for each category was performed with the Pearson chi-square test. Within group differences of the materials at different recall times were compared using the Cochran Q and Friedman tests. Bonferroni-adjusted McNemar test was used when significant difference was found (p<0.05). RESULTS: After 24 months, no statistically significant differences were found between the two restorative materials for the criteria evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Both silorane- and methacrylate-based resin composites showed clinically acceptable performance in class II slot restorations after 24 months.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the 24-month clinical performance of two different resin composites in class II slot restorations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-seven patients having at least two approximal carious lesions were enrolled in the study. A total of 116 teeth (58 pairs) were restored with either a silorane-based composite (Filtek Silorane) and its self-etch adhesive (Silorane Adhesive System, 3M ESPE) or a methacrylate-based packable resin composite (X-tra Fil) and its self-etch adhesive (Futurabond NR, VOCO GmbH) according to the toss of a coin. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and at six-, 12-, and 24-month recalls by two calibrated examiners according to the modified US Public Health Service criteria. The comparison of the two restorative materials for each category was performed with the Pearson chi-square test. Within group differences of the materials at different recall times were compared using the Cochran Q and Friedman tests. Bonferroni-adjusted McNemar test was used when significant difference was found (p<0.05). RESULTS: After 24 months, no statistically significant differences were found between the two restorative materials for the criteria evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Both silorane- and methacrylate-based resin composites showed clinically acceptable performance in class II slot restorations after 24 months.
Authors: Jefferson Ricardo Pereira; Hugo Alberto Vidotti; Lindomar Corrêa Júnior; Alef Vermudt; Mauro de Souza Almeida; Saulo Pamato Journal: Saudi Dent J Date: 2019-12-05