Top

Clinical Oral Investigations

Published in:

01-05-2014 | Original Article

Three-year randomized clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage silorane-based resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions

Authors: Batu Can Yaman, Işil Doğruer, Burak Gümüştaş, Begüm Güray Efes

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 4/2014

Abstract

Objective

The clinical suitability of low-shrinkage resin composites for class V cavities has not been investigated in vivo. The purpose of this double-blind randomized clinical trial was to compare the clinical performances of low-shrinkage resin composite Filtek silorane and nanoceramic resin composite Ceram X mono in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) over 36 months.

Materials and methods

Two calibrated operators restored 144 NCCLs in 24 patients by using Filtek silorane with silorane system adhesive (FS/SSA) and Ceram X mono with Clearfil SE (CXM/CSE) or XP bond (CXM/XPB). Then, two blinded, calibrated evaluators assessed the restorations at the baseline and 6, 12, 24, and 36 months thereafter by using the modified US Public Health Service criteria. Data were analyzed with the Freidman and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests at a significance level of 5 % (P < 0.05).

Results

No restoration was associated with postoperative sensitivity or secondary caries. Further, no group showed significant changes until 12 months. The retention rates of the FS/SSA (97.5 %), CXM/CSE (97.5 %), and CXM/XPB (92.31 %) restorations did not differ significantly (P > 0.05). Six (4 CXM/XPB, 1 FS/SSA, and 1 CXM/CSE) of the 121 restorations evaluated at 36 months were completely lost. However, no significant intergroup differences were observed in the other evaluation criteria.

Conclusion

The 3-year clinical performances of the restorative materials in NCCLs were not significantly different.

Clinical relevance

Filtek silorane is suitable for restoring NCCLs.

Available only for authorised users

Wood I, Jawad Z, Paisley C, Brunton P (2008) Non-carious cervical tooth surface loss: a literature review. J Dent 36:759–766PubMedCrossRef

Walter C, Kress E, Götz H, Taylor K, Willershausen I, Zampelis A (2013) The anatomy of non-carious cervical lesions. Clin Oral Invest. doi:10.1007/s00784-013-0960-0

Burrow MF, Tyas MJ (2007) Clinical evaluation of three adhesive systems for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 32:11–15PubMedCrossRef

Celik C, Ozgünaltay G, Attar N (2007) Clinical evaluation of flowable resins in non-carious cervical lesions: two-year results. Oper Dent 32:313–321PubMedCrossRef

Kim SY, Lee KW, Seong SR, Lee MA, Lee IB, Son HH, Kim HY, Oh MH, Cho BH (2009) Two-year clinical effectiveness of adhesives and retention form on resin composite restorations of non-carious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 34:507–515PubMedCrossRef

Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B (2012) A 13-year clinical evaluation of two three-step etch-and-rinse adhesives in non-carious class-V lesions. Clin Oral Invest 16:129–137CrossRef

Kubo S, Kawasaki K, Yokota H, Hayashi Y (2006) Five-year clinical evaluation of two adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent 34:97–105PubMedCrossRef

Reis A, Loguercio AD (2009) A 36-month clinical evaluation of ethanol/water and acetone-based etch-and-rinse adhesives in non-carious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 34:3843–3891

Heintze SD, Ruffieux C, Rousson V (2010) Clinical performance of cervical restorations—a meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent 26:993–1000

10.

Heymann HO, Sturdevant JR, Bayne S, Wilder AD, Sluder TB, Brunson WD (1991) Examining tooth flexure effects on cervical restorations: a two-year clinical study. J Am Dent Assoc 122:41–47PubMed

11.

Karaman E, Yazici AR, Ozgunaltay G, Dayangac B (2012) Clinical evaluation of a nanohybrid and a flowable resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions: 24-month results. J Adhes Dent 14:485–492PubMed

12.

Qin W, Song Z, Ye YY, Lin ZM (2013) Two-year clinical evaluation of composite resins in non-carious cervical lesions. Clin Oral Investig 17:799–804PubMedCrossRef

13.

Li Q, Jepsen S, Albers HK, Eberhard J (2006) Flowable materials as an intermediate layer could improve the marginal and internal adaptation of composite restorations in class-V-cavities. Dent Mater 22:250–257PubMedCrossRef

14.

Kubo S, Yokota H, Yokota H, Hayashi Y (2010) Three-year clinical evaluation of a flowable and a hybrid resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent 38:191–200PubMedCrossRef

15.

Loguercio AD, Reis A, Barbosa AN, Roulet JF (2003) Five-year double-blind randomized clinical evaluation of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a polyacid-modified resin in noncarious cervical lesions. J Adhes Dent 5:323–332PubMed

16.

Burgess JO, Gallo JR, Ripps AH, Walker RS, Ireland EJ (2004) Clinical evaluation of four Class V restorative materials: 3-year recall. Am J Dent 17:147–150PubMed

17.

Papadogiannis D, Tolidis K, Lakes R, Papadogiannis Y (2011) Viscoelastic properties of low-shrinking composite resins compared to packable composite resins. Dent Mater J 30:350–357PubMedCrossRef

18.

Bouillaguet S, Gamba J, Forchelet J, Krejci I, Wataha JC (2006) Dynamics of composite polymerization mediates the development of cuspal strain. Dent Mater J 22:896–902CrossRef

19.

Lutz E, Krejci I, Oldenburg TR (1986) Elimination of polymerization stresses at the margins of posterior composite resin restorations: a new restorative technique. Quintessence Int 17:777–784PubMed

20.

Kanca J 3rd, Suh B (1999) Pulse activation: reducing resin-based composite contraction stresses at the enamel cavosurface margins. Am J Dent 12:107–112PubMed

21.

Unterbrink GL, Liebenberg WH (1999) Flowable resin composites as “filled adhesives”: literature review and clinical recommendations. Quintessence Int 30:249–257PubMed

22.

Condon JR, Ferracane JL (1998) Reduction of composite contraction stress through non-bonded microfiller particles. Dent Mater 14:256–260PubMedCrossRef

23.

Condon JR, Ferracane JL (2002) Reduced polymerization stress through non-bonded nanofiller particles. Biomaterials 23:3807–3815PubMedCrossRef

24.

Braga RR, Ferracane JL (2004) Alternatives in polymerization contraction stress management. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 15:176–184PubMedCrossRef

25.

Filtek™ Silorane low shrink posterior restorative system (2007) Technical profile. 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN

26.

Weinmann W, Thalacker C, Guggenberger R (2005) Siloranes in dental composites. Dent Mater 21:68–74PubMedCrossRef

27.

Lien W, Vandewalle KS (2010) Physical properties of a new silorane-based restorative system. Dent Mater 26:337–344PubMedCrossRef

28.

Eick JD, Kotha SP, Chappelow CC, Kilway KV, Giese GJ, Glaros AG, Pinzino CS (2007) Properties of silorane-based dental resins and composites containing a stress-reducing monomer. Dent Mater 23:1011–1017PubMedCrossRef

29.

Baracco B, Perdigão J, Cabrera E, Giráldez I, Ceballos L (2012) Clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage composite in posterior restorations: one-year results. Oper Dent 37:117–129PubMedCrossRef

30.

Schmidt M, Kirkevang LL, Hørsted-Bindslev P, Poulsen S (2011) Marginal adaptation of a low-shrinkage silorane-based composite: 1-year randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Invest 15:291–295CrossRef

31.

Yaman BC, Guray BE, Dorter C, Gomeç Y, Yazıcıoğlu O, Erdilek D (2012) Effect of the erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser or diamond bur cavity preparation on the marginal microleakage of class V cavities restored with different adhesives and composite systems. Lasers Med Sci 27:785–794PubMedCrossRef

32.

Yaman BC, Efes BG, Dörter C, Gömeç Y, Erdilek D, Yazıcıoğlu O (2011) Microleakage of repaired class V silorane and nanohybrid composite restorations after preparation with erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser and diamond bur. Lasers Med Sci 26:163–170PubMedCrossRef

33.

Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Kanumilli P, Yoshida Y, Inoue S (2007) Restoring cervical lesions with flexible composites. Dent Mater 23:749–754PubMedCrossRef

34.

van Dijken JW, Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K, Lindberg A (2007) Clinical long-term retention of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions. A 13 years evaluation. Dent Mater 23:1101–1107PubMedCrossRef

35.

Franco EB, Benetti AR, Ishikiriama SK, Santiago SL, Lauris JR, Jorge MF, Navarro MF (2006) Five-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin modified glass ionomer restorative system in non-carious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 31:403–408PubMedCrossRef

36.

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 27:622–630PubMedCrossRef

37.

Cvar JF, Ryge G (2005) Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971. Clin Oral Investig 9:215–232PubMedCrossRef

38.

American Dental Association (2001) ADA acceptance program guidelines: resin based composites for posterior restorations. ADA Council on Scientific Affairs, Chicago

39.

Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B (2005) Three-year clinical effectiveness of a two-step self-etch adhesive in cervical lesions. Eur J Oral Sci 113:512–518PubMedCrossRef

40.

Lussi A, Schlueter N, Rakhmatullina E, Ganss C (2011) Dental erosion—an overview with emphasis on chemical and histopathological aspects. Caries Res 45(Suppl 1):2–12PubMedCrossRef

41.

Brännström M, Garberoglio R (1980) Occlusion of dentinal tubules under superficial attrited dentine. Swed Dent J 4:87–91PubMed

42.

Van Meerbeek B, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (1994) Morphological characterization of the interface between resin and sclerotic dentine. J Dent 22:141–146PubMedCrossRef

43.

Heintze SD, Ruffieux C, Rousson V (2010) Clinical performance of cervical restorations—a meta-analysis. Dent Mater 26:993–1000PubMedCrossRef

44.

Van Ende A, De Munk J, Mine A, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B (2010) Does low-shrinking composite induce less stress at the adhesive interface? Dent Mater 26:215–222PubMedCrossRef

45.

De Munk J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M (2005) A critical review of the durability adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res 84:118–132CrossRef

46.

Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P (2003) Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Oper Dent 28:215–235PubMed

47.

Peumans M, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B (2005) Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials. Dent Mater 21:864–881PubMedCrossRef

48.

Van Landuyt K, Mine A, De Munck J, Jaecques S, Peumans M, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B (2009) Are one-step adhesives easier to use and better performing? Multifactorial assessment of contemporary one-step self-etching adhesives. J Adhes Dent 11:175–190PubMed

49.

Loguercio AD, Mânica D, Ferneda F, Zander-Grande C, Amaral R, Stanislawczuk R, Carvalho RM, Manso A, Reis A (2010) Randomized clinical evaluation of a one- and two-step self-etch adhesive over 24 months. Oper Dent 35:265–272PubMedCrossRef

50.

Türkün LS (2005) The clinical performance of one- and two-step self-etching adhesive systems at 1 year. J Am Dent Assoc 136:656–664PubMedCrossRef

51.

Lindberg A, Davidson CL, Lindberg M (2003) Three-year evaluation of a new open sandwich technique in class II cavities. Am J Dent 16:33–36PubMed

52.

Schneider LF, Cavalcante LM, Silikas N, Watts DC (2011) Degradation resistance of silorane, experimental ormocer, and dimethacrylate resin-based dental composites. J Oral Sci 53:413–419PubMedCrossRef

53.

Roberson TM, Heymann HO, Ritter AV (2002) Introduction to composite restorations. In: Roberson TM, Heymann HO, Swift EJ (eds) Sturdevant’s the art and science of operative dentistry 4th edn. Mosby Inc, St Louis, MO, pp 470–550

Title: Three-year randomized clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage silorane-based resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions
Authors: Batu Can Yaman
Işil Doğruer
Burak Gümüştaş
Begüm Güray Efes
Publication date: 01-05-2014
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 4/2014
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1079-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Three-year randomized clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage silorane-based resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions

Abstract

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Clinical relevance

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Clinical relevance

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2014

Cervical metastases of squamous cell carcinoma of the maxilla: a retrospective study of 25 years

Effect of fluoride gels supplemented with sodium trimetaphosphate in reducing demineralization

In vitro culture system for keratinocytes obtained from oral lichen planus lesions

Fluoride releasing and enamel demineralization around orthodontic brackets by fluoride-releasing composite containing nanoparticles

A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the impact of a dental care program in the quality of life of head and neck cancer patients

Tissue response following papilla-sparing and sulcular incisions in oral surgery—an experimental study