The Short-term Clinical Performance of a Silorane-based Resin Composite in the Proximal Contacts of Class II Restorations

Fabiana Santos Gonçalves, Carolina Dolabela Leal de Castro, Audrey Cristina Bueno, Amanda Beatriz Dadah Aniceto de Freitas, Cláudia Silami de Magalhães

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice · 2012 · 10 citations · 25 references

DOIFull text

Open access

Concepts

Abstract

AIM: The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the proximal contact of a silorane-based resin composite with a conventional methacrylate-based resin composite in class II restorations after a 6 months follow-up period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After obtaining informed consent, 33 patients were randomly allocated into a test group (Filtek P90/Adhesive System-3M ESPE) or control group (Filtek P60/ Adper SE Plus-3M ESPE), and 100 direct resin composite restorations (n = 50) were placed. A single operator performed the cavities and restorations. After rubber dam placement, a metal matrix and wooden wedge were placed. The restorative systems were applied according to the manufacturer's instructions. After 1 week, the restorations were finished and polished. The proximal contacts were assessed blindly and independently by two calibrated examiners (kW = 0.8) at the baseline and after 6 months according to a three-step grading criteria. Data were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U-test and Wilcoxon signed Rank tests (a = 0.05). RESULTS: After 6 months, 96% of the restoration contacts were present for evaluation. The frequencies of restorations classified as Bravo in control and test groups were 6 and 8% at the baseline, and 6.25 and 12.75% after 6 months. No significant difference was found between the restorative materials (p > 0.05; Mann-Whitney U-test) neither between baseline and 6 months period (p > 0.05; Wilcoxon signed Rank tests). CONCLUSION: Both materials performed satisfactorily over 6 months follow-up period. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The short-term clinical performance of a silorane-based resin composite in the proximal contacts of class II restorations was similar to the well-known methacrylate-based resin composite.

References

25