Muhittin Ugurlu1, Fatmanur Sari2. 1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Süley man Demirel University, East Campus, 32200, Isparta, Turkey. dtmuhittinugurlu@gmail.com. 2. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Süley man Demirel University, East Campus, 32200, Isparta, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical success of posterior composite restorations repaired with and without silane application for up to 2 years. MATERIALS AND METHOD: In this retrospective study, patient record files acquired from the 40 patients who were treated due to needing repair for two class II defective composite restorations and visited the clinical practice for regular check-up visits were used. In the experimental group, the defective restorations were repaired using a silane coupling agent (Porcelain Primer), a universal adhesive (G-Premio Bond), and a microhybrid resin composite (Charisma Smart). In the control group, the restorations were repaired using the universal adhesive and the resin composite without silane coupling agent application. The repaired restorations were blindly assessed by two calibrated examiners using modified USPHS criteria at baseline, 6 months, 1, and 2 years. The data were analyzed using non-parametric tests (p = 0.05). RESULTS: After 2 years, 80 repaired class II restorations were evaluated. No restoration of either the control or silane-treated group failed. After 2 years, there were no statistically significant differences between the experimental and control groups (p > 0.05). The differences in surface roughness were observed in each group over time (p < 0.05). There were no variations in other criteria over time (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: There was no significant effect of the silane coupling agent on restoration repair survival. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The repair of localized defects of the posterior composite restorations either with or without silane application is a conservative treatment option that may increase the clinical success of these restorations.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical success of posterior composite restorations repaired with and without silane application for up to 2 years. MATERIALS AND METHOD: In this retrospective study, patient record files acquired from the 40 patients who were treated due to needing repair for two class II defective composite restorations and visited the clinical practice for regular check-up visits were used. In the experimental group, the defective restorations were repaired using a silane coupling agent (Porcelain Primer), a universal adhesive (G-Premio Bond), and a microhybrid resin composite (Charisma Smart). In the control group, the restorations were repaired using the universal adhesive and the resin composite without silane coupling agent application. The repaired restorations were blindly assessed by two calibrated examiners using modified USPHS criteria at baseline, 6 months, 1, and 2 years. The data were analyzed using non-parametric tests (p = 0.05). RESULTS: After 2 years, 80 repaired class II restorations were evaluated. No restoration of either the control or silane-treated group failed. After 2 years, there were no statistically significant differences between the experimental and control groups (p > 0.05). The differences in surface roughness were observed in each group over time (p < 0.05). There were no variations in other criteria over time (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: There was no significant effect of the silane coupling agent on restoration repair survival. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The repair of localized defects of the posterior composite restorations either with or without silane application is a conservative treatment option that may increase the clinical success of these restorations.
Authors: Gustavo Moncada; Javier Martin; Eduardo Fernández; Marie C Hempel; Ivar A Mjör; Valeria V Gordan Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 3.634
Authors: E Fernández; J Martín; P Vildósola; O B Oliveira Junior; V Gordan; I Mjor; C Bersezio; J Estay; M F de Andrade; G Moncada Journal: J Dent Date: 2014-06-04 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: J Estay; J Martín; V Viera; J Valdivieso; C Bersezio; P Vildosola; I A Mjor; M F Andrade; R R Moraes; G Moncada; V V Gordan; E Fernández Journal: Oper Dent Date: 2017-10-04 Impact factor: 2.440
Authors: N J M Opdam; F H van de Sande; E Bronkhorst; M S Cenci; P Bottenberg; U Pallesen; P Gaengler; A Lindberg; M C D N J M Huysmans; J W van Dijken Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2014-07-21 Impact factor: 6.116
Authors: Flávio F Demarco; Marcos B Corrêa; Maximiliano S Cenci; Rafael R Moraes; Niek J M Opdam Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 5.304