Publication:
Clinical Evaluation of a Siloraneand a Methacrylate-Based Resin Composite in Class II Restorations: 24-Month Results

dc.authorscopusid26021842100
dc.authorscopusid6506357068
dc.authorscopusid6602869118
dc.authorscopusid55806456200
dc.authorscopusid57198131906
dc.contributor.authorKaraman, E.
dc.contributor.authorYazici, A.R.
dc.contributor.authorÖzgünaltay, G.
dc.contributor.authorUstunkol, I.
dc.contributor.authorBerber, A.
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-21T13:19:04Z
dc.date.available2020-06-21T13:19:04Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.departmentOndokuz Mayıs Üniversitesien_US
dc.department-temp[Karaman] Emel, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkey; [Yazici] Ayse Rüya, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara, Turkey; [Özgünaltay] Gül, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara, Turkey; [Ustunkol] Ildem, İzmir Torbalı Oral and Dental Health Center, Izmir, Turkey; [Berber] Asli, Balgat Oral and Dental Health Center, Ankara, Ankara, Turkeyen_US
dc.description.abstractObjective: To compare the 24-month clinical performance of two different resin composites in class II slot restorations. Methods and Materials: Thirty-seven patients having at least two approximal carious lesions were enrolled in the study. A total of 116 teeth (58 pairs) were restored with either a siloranebased composite (Filtek Silorane) and its selfetch adhesive (Silorane Adhesive System, 3M ESPE) or a methacrylate-based packable resin composite (X-tra Fil) and its self-etch adhesive (Futurabond NR, VOCO GmbH) according to the toss of a coin. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and at six-, 12-, and 24- month recalls by two calibrated examiners according to the modified US Public Health Service criteria. The comparison of the two restorative materials for each category was performed with the Pearson chi-square test. Within group differences of the materials at different recall times were compared using the Cochran Q and Friedman tests. Bonferroniadjusted McNemar test was used when significant difference was found (p<0.05). Results: After 24 months, no statistically significant differences were found between the two restorative materials for the criteria evaluated. Conclusions: Both silorane- and methacrylatebased resin composites showed clinically acceptable performance in class II slot restorations after 24 months. © Operative Dentistry.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.2341/15-286-C
dc.identifier.endpageE110en_US
dc.identifier.issn0361-7734
dc.identifier.issn1559-2863
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.pmid28682704
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85022331445
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.startpageE102en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.2341/15-286-C
dc.identifier.volume42en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000405594000013
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherIndiana University School of Dentistryen_US
dc.relation.ispartofOperative Dentistryen_US
dc.relation.journalOperative Dentistryen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.titleClinical Evaluation of a Siloraneand a Methacrylate-Based Resin Composite in Class II Restorations: 24-Month Resultsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication

Files