Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage resin composite in endodontically treated premolars: 3-year follow-up

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

This study compared the 3-year clinical performance of a low-shrinkage silorane-based composite material with that of a methacrylate-based composite material in the restoration of endodontically treated premolar teeth.

Materials and methods

A total of 70 patients requiring a Class II composite-resin restoration of a premolar tooth following root-canal treatment participated in the study. Cavities were restored with either a silorane-based restorative (Filtek Silorane + Silorane System Adhesive) or a methacrylate-based restorative (Filtek Z250 + Clearfil SE Bond) system applied according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Restorations were evaluated by two blinded observers at five different time intervals (baseline; 6 months; 1, 2, and 3 years) according to modified USPHS criteria. Pearson’s chi-square tests were used to examine differences in the clinical performance of the materials (retention, color match, marginal discoloration, secondary caries, anatomical form, marginal adaptation, and surface roughness), and Friedman and Wilcoxon tests were used to compare changes between baseline and each recall time, with a level of 0.05 considered statistically significant.

Results

After 3 years, no statistically significant differences in clinical performance were observed between the two materials (p > 0.05). Intra-system comparisons revealed a statistically significant deterioration in color match, marginal discoloration, anatomical form, marginal adaptation, and surface roughness scores after 3 years for both systems. Although the difference was not significant at 3 years of follow-up, the level of deterioration in marginal adaptation and surface roughness was greater for the Filtek Silorane restoration than for the Filtek Z250 restoration at the 1 year follow-up (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Restorations of both materials were clinically acceptable after 3 years. The Filtek Silorane system did not appear to offer any clinical advantages over the methacrylate-based system when used in the restoration of Class II cavities in endodontically treated premolars.

Clinical relevance

The restoration of endodontically treated premolars with minor or moderate loss of tooth structure can be directly performed either with silorane or methacrylate-based composite resins.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nagasiri R, Chitmongkolsuk S (2005) Long-term survival of endodontically treated molars without crown coverage: a retrospective cohort study. J Prosthet Dent 93(2):164–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.11.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Shafiei F, Tavangar MS, Ghahramani Y, Fattah Z (2014) Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored by silorane-based composite with or without fiber or nano-ionomer. J Adv Prosthodont 6(3):200–206. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2014.6.3.200

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Taha NA, Maghaireh GA, Bagheri R, Abu Holy A (2015) Fracture strength of root filled premolar teeth restored with silorane and methacrylate-based resin composite. J Dent 43(6):735–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.01.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Aquilino SA, Caplan DJ (2002) Relationship between crown placement and the survival of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 87(3):256–263. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.122014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nothdurft FP, Seidel E, Gebhart F, Naumann M, Motter PJ, Pospiech PR (2008) The fracture behavior of premolar teeth with class II cavities restored by both direct composite restorations and endodontic post systems. J Dent 36(6):444–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2008.03.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Butz F, Lennon AM, Heydecke G, Strub JR (2001) Survival rate and fracture strength of endodontically treated maxillary incisors with moderate defects restored with different post-and-core systems: an in vitrostudy. Int J Prosthodont 14(1):58–64

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Heydecke G, Butz F, Strub JR (2001) Fracture strength and survival rate of endodontically treated maxillary incisors with approximal cavities after restoration with different post and core systems: an in-vitro study. J Dent 29(6):427–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(01)00038-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Soares PV, Santos-Filho PC, Queiroz EC, Araújo TC, Campos RE, Araújo CA, Soares CJ (2008) Fracture resistance and stres distribution in endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with composite resin. J Prosthodont 17(2):114–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00258.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Taha NA, Palamara JE, Messer HH (2009) Cuspal deflection, strain and microleakage of endodontically treated premolar teeth restored with direct resin composites. J Dent 37(9):724–730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2009.05.027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Meredith N, Setchell DJ (1997) In vitro measurement of cuspal strain and displacement in composite restored teeth. J Dent 25(3–4):331–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(96)00047-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Schmidt M, Dige I, Kirkevang LL, Vaeth M, Hørsted-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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1238-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Weinmann W, Thalacker C, Guggenberger R (2005) Siloranes in dental composites. Dent Mater 21(1):68–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2004.10.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Burke FJ, Crisp RJ, James A, Mackenzie L, Pal A, Sands P, Thompson O, Palin WM (2011) Two year clinical evaluation of a low-shrink resin composite material in UK general dental practices. Dent Mater 27(7):622–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.02.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gao BT, Lin H, Zheng G, Xu YX, Yang JL (2012) Comparison between a silorane-based composite and methacrylate-based composites: shrinkage characteristics, thermal properties, gel point and vitrification point. Dent Mater J 31(1):76–85. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2011-147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Yamazaki PC, Bedran-Russo AK, Pereira PN, Wsift EJ Jr (2006) Microleakage evaluation of a new low-shrinkage composite restorative material. Oper Dent 31(6):670–676. https://doi.org/10.2341/05-129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Papadogiannis D, Kakaboura A, Palaghias G, Eliades G (2009) Setting characteristics and cavity adaptation of low-shrinking resin composites. Dent Mater 25(12):1509–1516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.06.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bouillaguet S, Gamba J, Forchelet J, Krejci I, Wataha JC (2006) Dynamics of composite polymerization mediates the development of cuspal strain. Dent Mater 22(10):896–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.11.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mannocci F, Bertelli E, Sherriff M, Watson TF, Ford TR (2002) Three-year clinical comparison of survival of endodontically treated teeth restored with either full cast coverage or with direct composite restoration. J Prosthet Dent 88(3):297–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01525.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Walter R, Boushell LW, Heymann HO, Ritter AV, Sturdevant JR, Wilder AD Jr, Chung Y, Swift EJ Jr (2014) Three-year clinical evaluation of a silorane composite resin. J Esthet Restor Dent 26(3):179–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12077

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Soares PV, Santos-Filho PC, Martins LR, Soares CJ (2008) Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part I: fracture resistance and fracture mode. J Prosthet Dent 99(1):30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60006-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Reel DC, Mitchell RJ (1989) Fracture resistance of teeth restored with class II composite restorations. J Prosthet Dent 61(2):177–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(89)90369-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ausiello P, De Gee AJ, Rengo S, Davidson CL (1997) Fracture resistance of endodontically-treated premolars adhesively restored. Am J Dent 10(5):237–241

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. McCullock AJ, Smith BG (1986) In vitro studies of cusp reinforcement with adhesive restorative material. Br Dent J 161(12):450–452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wendt SL Jr (1991) Microleakage and cusp fracture resistance of heat-treated composite resin inlays. Am J Dent 4(1):10–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mahmoud SH, Ali AK, Hegazi HA (2014) A three-year prospective randomized study of silorane- and methacrylate-based composite restorative systems in class II restorations. J Adhes Dent 16(3):285–292. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a31939

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ilie N, Hickel R (2006) Silorane-based dental composite: behavior and abilities. Dent Mater J 25(3):445–454. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.25.445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a36916

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gonçalves FS, Leal CD, Bueno AC, Freitas AB, Moreira AN, Magalhães CS (2013) A double-blind randomized clinical trial of a silorane-based resin composite in class 2 restorations: 18-month follow-up. Am J Dent 26(2):93–98

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Yazici AR, Ustunkol I, Ozgunaltay G, Dayangac B (2014) Three-year clinical evaluation of different restorative resins in class I restorations. Oper Dent 39(3):248–245. https://doi.org/10.2341/13-221-C

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1591-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Takahashi H, Finger WJ, Wegner K, Utterodt A, Komatsu M, Wöstmann B, Balkenhol M (2010) Factors influencing marginal cavity adaptation of nanofiller containing resin composite restorations. Dent Mater 26(12):1166–1175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.08.189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y, Mine A, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL (2011) State of the art of self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater 27(1):17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lopes GC, Marson FC, Vieira LCC, de Andrada MAC, Baratieri LN (2004) Composite bond strength to enamel with self-etching primers. Oper Dent 29(4):424–429

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hayashi M, Wilson NH (2003) Marginal deterioration as a predictor of failure of a posterior composite. Eur J Oral Sci 111(2):155–162. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0722.2003.00020.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Baracco B, Perdigão J, Cabrera E, Ceballos L (2013) Two-year clinical performance of a low-shrinkage composite in posterior restorations. Oper Dent 38(6):591–600. https://doi.org/10.2341/12-364-C

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Attia RM, Etman WM, Genaid TM (2014) One year clinical follow up of a silorane-based versus a methacrylate-based composite resin. Tanta Dent J 11:12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tdj.2014.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, Heintze SD, Mjör IA, Peters M, Rousson V, Randall R, Schmalz G, Tyas M, Vanherle G (2007) Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 11(1):5–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-006-0095-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Köhler B, Rasmusson CG, Odman P (2000) A five-year clinical evaluation of class II composite resin restorations. J Dent 28(2):111–1116. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(99)00059-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The study had no funding source.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayis University, Samsun, Turkey

    Nihan Gönülol & Ertan Ertaş

  2. Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Endodontics, Ondokuz Mayis University, Samsun, Turkey

    Elif Kalyoncuoğlu

  3. Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Çanakkale Onsekizmart University, Çanakkale, Turkey

    Tuğba Misilli

Authors
  1. Nihan Gönülol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elif Kalyoncuoğlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ertan Ertaş
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tuğba Misilli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nihan Gönülol.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Ondokuz Mayis University Human Ethics Committee (OMU-TAEK 2013/227) and was conducted in line with the Helsinki Declaration’s ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.

Informed consent

All subjects gave their written, informed consent for participation.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gönülol, N., Kalyoncuoğlu, E., Ertaş, E. et al. Clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage resin composite in endodontically treated premolars: 3-year follow-up. Clin Oral Invest 23, 2323–2330 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2677-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2677-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation