Three-year clinical evaluation of a silorane composite resin

Ricardo Walter, Lee W. Boushell, Harald O. Heymann, Andre V. Ritter, John R. Sturdevant, Aldridge D. Wilder, Yunro Chung, Edward J. Swift

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Statement of Problem Composite resins are still outperformed by amalgams in the clinical practice with secondary caries and fractures being their most common failures. A material that suffers less polymerization shrinkage might improve the clinical performance of composite resins. Purpose To evaluate the clinical performance of a low-shrink silorane-based composite resin (Filtek LS Low Shrink Posterior Restorative, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) in comparison with a methacrylate-based composite resin (Tetric EvoCeram, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Principality of Liechtenstein) over time. Materials and Methods Candidates in need of Class II composite resin restorations participated in this randomized controlled clinical trial. Those were 25 female and six male subjects with average age of 44.3 ± 12.7 years. Participants received 82 restorations, being 54 in premolars and 28 in molars. Procedures, which included the restoration of primary caries lesions or replacement of failing restorations, were done using modified preparations with no bevels or additional retention. Restorations were placed using Filtek LS (and dedicated self-etch adhesive) or Tetric EvoCeram (with AdheSE, Ivoclar Vivadent), following manufacturers' instructions. Incremental placement technique was applied and the restorations were immediately finished. Follow-up evaluations occurred at six, 12, 24, and 36 months and were done using the Fédération Dentaire Internationale criteria. Statistical analysis was performed using generalized estimating equations. Results The recall rate at 36 months was 89%. All interaction terms were not significant. Conclusions Filtek LS performs as well as Tetric EvoCeram performs in the clinical setting at 36 months. Clinical Significance The silorane-based composite resin Filtek LS and the conventional methacrylate-based composite resin Tetric EvoCeram performed similarly well in posterior restorations over at least 36 months of clinical service.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)179-190
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
Volume26
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Composite Resins
Methacrylates
Liechtenstein
Bicuspid
Polymerization
Adhesives
Randomized Controlled Trials
silorane composite resin
Tetric EvoCeram
Vivadent
inzoma

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Walter, R., Boushell, L. W., Heymann, H. O., Ritter, A. V., Sturdevant, J. R., Wilder, A. D., ... Swift, E. J. (2014). Three-year clinical evaluation of a silorane composite resin. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, 26(3), 179-190. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12077

Three-year clinical evaluation of a silorane composite resin. / Walter, Ricardo; Boushell, Lee W.; Heymann, Harald O.; Ritter, Andre V.; Sturdevant, John R.; Wilder, Aldridge D.; Chung, Yunro; Swift, Edward J.

In: Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, Vol. 26, No. 3, 01.01.2014, p. 179-190.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Walter, R, Boushell, LW, Heymann, HO, Ritter, AV, Sturdevant, JR, Wilder, AD, Chung, Y & Swift, EJ 2014, 'Three-year clinical evaluation of a silorane composite resin', Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 179-190. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12077
Walter R, Boushell LW, Heymann HO, Ritter AV, Sturdevant JR, Wilder AD et al. Three-year clinical evaluation of a silorane composite resin. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. 2014 Jan 1;26(3):179-190. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12077
Walter, Ricardo ; Boushell, Lee W. ; Heymann, Harald O. ; Ritter, Andre V. ; Sturdevant, John R. ; Wilder, Aldridge D. ; Chung, Yunro ; Swift, Edward J. / Three-year clinical evaluation of a silorane composite resin. In: Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. 2014 ; Vol. 26, No. 3. pp. 179-190.
@article{c87e2fd4111e45bd87bdb8a415c9bd48,
title = "Three-year clinical evaluation of a silorane composite resin",
abstract = "Statement of Problem Composite resins are still outperformed by amalgams in the clinical practice with secondary caries and fractures being their most common failures. A material that suffers less polymerization shrinkage might improve the clinical performance of composite resins. Purpose To evaluate the clinical performance of a low-shrink silorane-based composite resin (Filtek LS Low Shrink Posterior Restorative, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) in comparison with a methacrylate-based composite resin (Tetric EvoCeram, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Principality of Liechtenstein) over time. Materials and Methods Candidates in need of Class II composite resin restorations participated in this randomized controlled clinical trial. Those were 25 female and six male subjects with average age of 44.3 ± 12.7 years. Participants received 82 restorations, being 54 in premolars and 28 in molars. Procedures, which included the restoration of primary caries lesions or replacement of failing restorations, were done using modified preparations with no bevels or additional retention. Restorations were placed using Filtek LS (and dedicated self-etch adhesive) or Tetric EvoCeram (with AdheSE, Ivoclar Vivadent), following manufacturers' instructions. Incremental placement technique was applied and the restorations were immediately finished. Follow-up evaluations occurred at six, 12, 24, and 36 months and were done using the F{\'e}d{\'e}ration Dentaire Internationale criteria. Statistical analysis was performed using generalized estimating equations. Results The recall rate at 36 months was 89{\%}. All interaction terms were not significant. Conclusions Filtek LS performs as well as Tetric EvoCeram performs in the clinical setting at 36 months. Clinical Significance The silorane-based composite resin Filtek LS and the conventional methacrylate-based composite resin Tetric EvoCeram performed similarly well in posterior restorations over at least 36 months of clinical service.",
author = "Ricardo Walter and Boushell, {Lee W.} and Heymann, {Harald O.} and Ritter, {Andre V.} and Sturdevant, {John R.} and Wilder, {Aldridge D.} and Yunro Chung and Swift, {Edward J.}",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/jerd.12077",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "179--190",
journal = "Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry",
issn = "1496-4155",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Three-year clinical evaluation of a silorane composite resin

AU - Walter, Ricardo

AU - Boushell, Lee W.

AU - Heymann, Harald O.

AU - Ritter, Andre V.

AU - Sturdevant, John R.

AU - Wilder, Aldridge D.

AU - Chung, Yunro

AU - Swift, Edward J.

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - Statement of Problem Composite resins are still outperformed by amalgams in the clinical practice with secondary caries and fractures being their most common failures. A material that suffers less polymerization shrinkage might improve the clinical performance of composite resins. Purpose To evaluate the clinical performance of a low-shrink silorane-based composite resin (Filtek LS Low Shrink Posterior Restorative, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) in comparison with a methacrylate-based composite resin (Tetric EvoCeram, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Principality of Liechtenstein) over time. Materials and Methods Candidates in need of Class II composite resin restorations participated in this randomized controlled clinical trial. Those were 25 female and six male subjects with average age of 44.3 ± 12.7 years. Participants received 82 restorations, being 54 in premolars and 28 in molars. Procedures, which included the restoration of primary caries lesions or replacement of failing restorations, were done using modified preparations with no bevels or additional retention. Restorations were placed using Filtek LS (and dedicated self-etch adhesive) or Tetric EvoCeram (with AdheSE, Ivoclar Vivadent), following manufacturers' instructions. Incremental placement technique was applied and the restorations were immediately finished. Follow-up evaluations occurred at six, 12, 24, and 36 months and were done using the Fédération Dentaire Internationale criteria. Statistical analysis was performed using generalized estimating equations. Results The recall rate at 36 months was 89%. All interaction terms were not significant. Conclusions Filtek LS performs as well as Tetric EvoCeram performs in the clinical setting at 36 months. Clinical Significance The silorane-based composite resin Filtek LS and the conventional methacrylate-based composite resin Tetric EvoCeram performed similarly well in posterior restorations over at least 36 months of clinical service.

AB - Statement of Problem Composite resins are still outperformed by amalgams in the clinical practice with secondary caries and fractures being their most common failures. A material that suffers less polymerization shrinkage might improve the clinical performance of composite resins. Purpose To evaluate the clinical performance of a low-shrink silorane-based composite resin (Filtek LS Low Shrink Posterior Restorative, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) in comparison with a methacrylate-based composite resin (Tetric EvoCeram, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Principality of Liechtenstein) over time. Materials and Methods Candidates in need of Class II composite resin restorations participated in this randomized controlled clinical trial. Those were 25 female and six male subjects with average age of 44.3 ± 12.7 years. Participants received 82 restorations, being 54 in premolars and 28 in molars. Procedures, which included the restoration of primary caries lesions or replacement of failing restorations, were done using modified preparations with no bevels or additional retention. Restorations were placed using Filtek LS (and dedicated self-etch adhesive) or Tetric EvoCeram (with AdheSE, Ivoclar Vivadent), following manufacturers' instructions. Incremental placement technique was applied and the restorations were immediately finished. Follow-up evaluations occurred at six, 12, 24, and 36 months and were done using the Fédération Dentaire Internationale criteria. Statistical analysis was performed using generalized estimating equations. Results The recall rate at 36 months was 89%. All interaction terms were not significant. Conclusions Filtek LS performs as well as Tetric EvoCeram performs in the clinical setting at 36 months. Clinical Significance The silorane-based composite resin Filtek LS and the conventional methacrylate-based composite resin Tetric EvoCeram performed similarly well in posterior restorations over at least 36 months of clinical service.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84903535853&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84903535853&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/jerd.12077

DO - 10.1111/jerd.12077

M3 - Article

C2 - 24344912

AN - SCOPUS:84903535853

VL - 26

SP - 179

EP - 190

JO - Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry

JF - Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry

SN - 1496-4155

IS - 3

ER -