Five-year clinical performance of a silorane- vs a methacrylate-based composite combined with two different adhesive approaches

dc.contributor.authorBARACCO, BRUNO
dc.contributor.authorFUENTES, M VICTORIA
dc.contributor.authorCEBALLOS, LAURA
dc.date.accessioned2024-01-08T11:43:55Z
dc.date.available2024-01-08T11:43:55Z
dc.date.issued2016-06
dc.description.abstractObjectives: The objective of this study was to compare the 5-year clinical performance in posterior restorations of three restorative systems including a low-shrinkage system and a methacrylate-based composite combined either with an etch-and-rinse or a self-etch adhesive. Materials and methods: Each of 25 patients received three class I (occlusal) or class II restorations performed with each one of the three restorative systems: Filtek Silorane Restorative System including a two-step self-etch adhesive, Adper Scotchbond 1 XT (two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive) + Filtek Z250, and Adper Scotchbond SE (two-step self-etch adhesive) + Filtek Z250. All materials were applied as per manufacturer’s instructions. Two blind observers evaluated the restorations at four different moments (baseline, after 1, 2, and 5 years) according to the USPHS-modified criteria. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted to compare the behavior of the restorative systems, while Friedman and Wilcoxon tests were applied to analyze the intrasystem data (p < 0.05). Results: After 5 years, marginal staining around the restorations with Adper Scotchbond SE + Filtek Z250 was statistically more frequent and severe than that of the restorations performed with the other two systems. Intrasystem comparisons revealed a deterioration of the marginal adaptation after 5 years for all systems. A significant number of restorations bonded with self-etch adhesives showed marginal staining after 5 years of clinical service. A deterioration of the color appearance and an increase of the surface roughness were also detected in the restorations performed with Adper Scotchbond SE + Filtek Z250. Conclusions: A deterioration of the marginal adaptation was evidenced for all restorative systems, while marginal staining was more frequently seen only around the restorations performed with self-etch adhesives. Clinical relevance: No advantage was found of the silorane over the methacrylate-based composite when combined with an etch-and-rinse adhesive.es
dc.identifier.citationBaracco, B., Fuentes, M.V. & Ceballos, L. Five-year clinical performance of a silorane- vs a methacrylate-based composite combined with two different adhesive approaches. Clin Oral Invest 20, 991–1001 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1591-4es
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00784-015-1591-4es
dc.identifier.issn1436-3771
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10115/28247
dc.language.isoenges
dc.publisherSPRINGERes
dc.rightsAtribución 4.0 Internacional*
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/*
dc.subjectClinical evaluationes
dc.subjectSiloranees
dc.subjectLow-shrinkagees
dc.subjectSelf-etch adhesivees
dc.subjectEtch-and-rinse adhesivees
dc.subjectPosterior restorationses
dc.titleFive-year clinical performance of a silorane- vs a methacrylate-based composite combined with two different adhesive approacheses
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees

Archivos

Bloque original

Mostrando 1 - 1 de 1
No hay miniatura disponible
Nombre:
extra2016cloi.pdf
Tamaño:
2.82 MB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descripción: