Clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage resin composite in endodontically treated premolars: 3-year follow-up.
OBJECTIVES
This study compared the 3-year clinical performance of a low-shrinkage silorane-based composite material with that of a methacrylate-based composite material in the restoration of endodontically treated premolar teeth.


MATERIALS AND METHODS
A total of 70 patients requiring a Class II composite-resin restoration of a premolar tooth following root-canal treatment participated in the study. Cavities were restored with either a silorane-based restorative (Filtek Silorane + Silorane System Adhesive) or a methacrylate-based restorative (Filtek Z250 + Clearfil SE Bond) system applied according to the manufacturer's instructions. Restorations were evaluated by two blinded observers at five different time intervals (baseline; 6 months; 1, 2, and 3 years) according to modified USPHS criteria. Pearson's chi-square tests were used to examine differences in the clinical performance of the materials (retention, color match, marginal discoloration, secondary caries, anatomical form, marginal adaptation, and surface roughness), and Friedman and Wilcoxon tests were used to compare changes between baseline and each recall time, with a level of 0.05 considered statistically significant.


RESULTS
After 3 years, no statistically significant differences in clinical performance were observed between the two materials (p > 0.05). Intra-system comparisons revealed a statistically significant deterioration in color match, marginal discoloration, anatomical form, marginal adaptation, and surface roughness scores after 3 years for both systems. Although the difference was not significant at 3 years of follow-up, the level of deterioration in marginal adaptation and surface roughness was greater for the Filtek Silorane restoration than for the Filtek Z250 restoration at the 1 year follow-up (p > 0.05).


CONCLUSION
Restorations of both materials were clinically acceptable after 3 years. The Filtek Silorane system did not appear to offer any clinical advantages over the methacrylate-based system when used in the restoration of Class II cavities in endodontically treated premolars.


CLINICAL RELEVANCE
The restoration of endodontically treated premolars with minor or moderate loss of tooth structure can be directly performed either with silorane or methacrylate-based composite resins.
['Gönülol|Nihan|N|', 'Kalyoncuoğlu|Elif|E|', 'Ertaş|Ertan|E|', 'Misilli|Tuğba|T|']
D000293:Adolescent D000328:Adult D001641:Bicuspid D003188:Composite Resins D018772:Dental Marginal Adaptation D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent D005260:Female D005500:Follow-Up Studies D006801:Humans D008297:Male D008875:Middle Aged D019279:Resin Cements D062047:Silorane Resins D013499:Surface Properties D055815:Young Adult
Silorane Class II restoration Endodontic treatment Randomized clinical trial Resin-based composite