Two-year clinical performance of a low-shrinkage composite in posterior restorations.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the two-year clinical performance of three restorative systems in posterior restorations, which included a low-shrinkage composite and both etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive strategies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After signing an informed consent, 25 patients received three Class I (occlusal) or Class II restorations performed with one of three restorative systems: Filtek Silorane Restorative System, Adper Scotchbond 1 XT (a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive) with Filtek Z250, and Adper Scotchbond SE (a two-step self-etch adhesive) with Filtek Z250. All materials were applied following the manufacturer's instructions. Two blind observers evaluated the restorations at three different moments (baseline; and after one and two years) according to the US Public Health Service modified criteria. Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U-test were used to compare the behavior of the restorative systems, while Friedman and Wilcoxon tests were applied to analyze the intra-system data (p<0.05). RESULTS: The three restorative systems showed a statistically similar clinical performance at two years. Intra-system comparisons between baseline and two years showed declining marginal adaptation scores in the restorations placed with all systems. In addition, marginal staining and surface roughness scores were lower after two years for the restorations placed with Adper Scotchbond SE + Filtek Z250. CONCLUSIONS: Although the clinical performance of Filtek Silorane was considered acceptable after two years, no advantage of the silorane-based resin over the methacrylate-based composite was found. Teeth restored with Adper Scotchbond SE showed a tendency for marginal staining, which may compromise the final color of the restorations.

Clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage composite in posterior restorations: one-year results.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the one-year clinical performance of three restorative systems, which included a novel low-shrinkage composite and two bonding strategies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients received three Class I (occlusal) or Class II restorations performed with one of three restorative systems: Filtek Silorane Restorative System (FS); Adper Scotchbond 1 XT, a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive, with Filtek Z250 (XT); and Adper Scotchbond SE, a two-step self-etch adhesive, with Filtek Z250 (SE). All materials were applied following the manufacturer's instructions. Two independent observers evaluated the restorations at baseline, after six months, and after one year, according to the United States Public Health System modified criteria. The Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney U-test were computed to compare the behavior of the restorative systems; Friedman and Wilcoxon tests were used to analyze the intrasystem data (α=0.05). RESULTS: All restorations were evaluated at one year. FS and XT performed statistically similarly at one year, but marginal staining for SE was statistically worse. Intrasystem comparisons between baseline and one year also showed deterioration of marginal staining for SE, while a deterioration of the marginal adaptation was recorded for both SE and FS. XT was the only system for which there was no statistical change of the parameters measured in this study. CONCLUSIONS: Both restorative systems using self-etch adhesives showed a tendency to degradation of marginal adaptation after one year of clinical use, compared to baseline values. Although the clinical performance of FS was deemed acceptable after one year, this study did not find any advantage of the silorane-based composite over the methacrylate-based composite. The low-shrinkage associated with FS may not be a determinant factor for clinical success.