6 research outputs found

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

    No full text
    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

    The effects of glass ionomer and flowable composite liners on the fracture resistance of open-sandwich class II restorations

    No full text
    This in vitro study aimed to investigate the effects of glass-ionomer and flowable composite liners on the fracture resistance of Class II amalgam and composite restorations. Group 1 cavities were restored with amalgam and Group 4 cavities with nanofill composite after the application of a dentin-bonding agent. For the remaining groups, light-cured-glass-ionomer liner was used in a gingival floor proximal box (Groups 2, 5) or flowable composite was used as a liner (Groups 3, 6), the remainder of the cavity was restored with amalgam (Groups 2, 3) or composite (Groups 5, 6). The restorations were loaded in compression to failure. The data was analyzed using Tukey's multiple comparison test. The fracture resistance was significantly higher (p0.05). Flowable composite, glass-ionomer liners increased the fracture resistance of open-sandwich Class II amalgam restorations

    Randomized controlled trial of the 2-year clinical performance of a silorane-based resin composite in class 1 posterior restorations

    No full text
    Purpose: To compare the 2-year clinical performance of a silorane-based resin composite with that of an established nanoceramic resin composite for class 1 posterior restorations. Methods: In this randomized controlled study, 100 class 1 molar cavities were prepared in 50 subjects. Each subject received a restoration with Filtek Silorane and Ceram.X Duo in different quadrants. The restorations were evaluated using the modified USPHS criteria at baseline and 6, 12, and 24 months. Parametric changes over the 2-year period were assessed with the Friedman test. The baseline and recall scores were compared by using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (P 0.05). At 2 years, four Filtek Silorane and seven Ceram.X Duo restorations had Bravo scores for anatomic form, marginal adaptation, and surface texture (P< 0.05); however, these changes were mainly the effect of scoring shifts from Alfa to Bravo. Overall, both materials showed good clinical results with predominantly Alfa scores

    Microleakage of repaired class V silorane and nano-hybrid composite restorations after preparation with erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser and diamond bur

    No full text
    The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the microleakage of repaired class V resin composite restorations prepared either by Er:YAG laser or a diamond bur. Ninety-six intact human molar teeth were randomly distributed into eight groups. In the first four groups, class V cavities (3 x 3 x 3 mm) prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of the teeth using an erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser (VersaWave, HOYA ConBio, Japan). Similar class V cavities were prepared in the second four groups using a diamond bur (S-Class, Komet, UK). Teeth in groups 1, 2, and 5, 6 were restored with a nano-ceramic composite (Ceram.X duo, DENTSPLY), whereas a silorane material (Filtek Silorane, 3M ESPE) was used to restore cavities in groups 3, 4, and 7, 8. Two different adhesive systems (XP Bond, DENTSPLY, and Silorane System Adhesive, 3M ESPE) were also used. All specimens were aged for 7 days. New cavities (3 x 3 x 3 mm) were prepared adjacent to the old restorations with Er:YAG laser (groups I-IV) or diamond bur (groups V-VIII). Different repair materials were then applied to the new cavities using the previous two restorative materials and two adhesive systems. All teeth were subjected to thermocycling (5,000 cycles between 5 and 55A degrees C) and axial loadcycling (30 N, 1 Hz, 2,000 cycles). Specimens were immersed in 50% w/w silver nitrate solution. Teeth were sectioned longitudinally in buccolingual direction. Stereomicroscope (Nikon SMZ 800) and SEM (JEOL JSM 5600) were used to evaluate the microleakage that existed at the interface between the old restorations and the repair materials. Data were analyzed statistically with one-way ANOVA and Tukey tests (p 0.05). No microleakage scores were obtained in the groups repaired with Filtek Silorane/Filtek Silorane and Ceram.X/Ceram.X. All the substances tested can be used as repair materials for immediate repair after Er:YAG laser and diamond bur. All substances tested in this study can be used as immediate repair materials after cavity preparations with Er:YAG laser or diamond bur

    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

    No full text
    The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the microleakage of Er:YAG laser and diamond bur on different bonding systems in class V restorations. Class V cavities were prepared with Er:YAG laser or diamond bur on 80 intact human molars. Teeth were randomly distributed into ten groups and cavities were restored with CeramX duo (DENTSPLY) or Filtek Silorane (3M/ESPE) using different bonding materials (One Coat 7.0 (ColtSne), XP Bond (DENTSPLY), Clearfil Protect Bond (Kuraray), AdperSE (3M/ESPE), and Silorane System Adhesive (3M/ESPE). All specimens were subjected to thermocycling and load cycling. After being immersed in silver nitrate dye, the specimens were sectioned. Microleakage was evaluated by stereomicroscope and SEM. Data were statistically analyzed by one-way ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney tests. Statistically differences were found between groups (p > 0.05) and cavities prepared with the Er:YAG laser showed higher microleakage than diamond bur. The microleakage of different bonding systems was influenced by the choice of diamond bur or Er:YAG laser for class V composite cavity preparation
    corecore