The clinical success of repaired posterior composite restorations with and without silane application


UĞURLU M., SARI F.

Clinical Oral Investigations, vol.26, no.9, pp.5785-5793, 2022 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 26 Issue: 9
  • Publication Date: 2022
  • Doi Number: 10.1007/s00784-022-04535-5
  • Journal Name: Clinical Oral Investigations
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, EMBASE, MEDLINE
  • Page Numbers: pp.5785-5793
  • Keywords: Repair, Resin composite, Retrospective, Silane, Universal adhesive, BOND STRENGTH, RESIN COMPOSITE, DEFECTIVE RESTORATIONS, UNIVERSAL ADHESIVE, DIFFERENT SURFACE, LONGEVITY, DECISION
  • Süleyman Demirel University Affiliated: Yes

Abstract

© 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.Objective: To evaluate the clinical success of posterior composite restorations repaired with and without silane application for up to 2 years. Materials and method: In this retrospective study, patient record files acquired from the 40 patients who were treated due to needing repair for two class II defective composite restorations and visited the clinical practice for regular check-up visits were used. In the experimental group, the defective restorations were repaired using a silane coupling agent (Porcelain Primer), a universal adhesive (G-Premio Bond), and a microhybrid resin composite (Charisma Smart). In the control group, the restorations were repaired using the universal adhesive and the resin composite without silane coupling agent application. The repaired restorations were blindly assessed by two calibrated examiners using modified USPHS criteria at baseline, 6 months, 1, and 2 years. The data were analyzed using non-parametric tests (p = 0.05). Results: After 2 years, 80 repaired class II restorations were evaluated. No restoration of either the control or silane-treated group failed. After 2 years, there were no statistically significant differences between the experimental and control groups (p > 0.05). The differences in surface roughness were observed in each group over time (p < 0.05). There were no variations in other criteria over time (p > 0.05). Conclusion: There was no significant effect of the silane coupling agent on restoration repair survival. Clinical relevance: The repair of localized defects of the posterior composite restorations either with or without silane application is a conservative treatment option that may increase the clinical success of these restorations.