Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorGonulol, Nihan
dc.contributor.authorKalyoncuoglu, Elif
dc.contributor.authorErtas, Ertan
dc.contributor.authorMisilli, Tugba
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-21T12:27:03Z
dc.date.available2020-06-21T12:27:03Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.issn1432-6981
dc.identifier.issn1436-3771
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2677-6
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12712/10862
dc.descriptionWOS: 000466308400033en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed: 30293184en_US
dc.description.abstractObjectivesThis 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 methodsA 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; 6months; 1, 2, and 3years) 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.ResultsAfter 3years, 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 3years for both systems. Although the difference was not significant at 3years 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 1year follow-up (p>0.05).ConclusionRestorations of both materials were clinically acceptable after 3years. 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 relevanceThe 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.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherSpringer Heidelbergen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1007/s00784-018-2677-6en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectClass II restorationen_US
dc.subjectEndodontic treatmenten_US
dc.subjectRandomized clinical trialen_US
dc.subjectResin-based compositeen_US
dc.subjectSiloraneen_US
dc.titleClinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage resin composite in endodontically treated premolars: 3-year follow-upen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentOMÜen_US
dc.identifier.volume23en_US
dc.identifier.issue5en_US
dc.identifier.startpage2323en_US
dc.identifier.endpage2330en_US
dc.relation.journalClinical Oral Investigationsen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

DosyalarBoyutBiçimGöster

Bu öğe ile ilişkili dosya yok.

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster