One year clinical follow up of a silorane-based versus a methacrylate-based composite resin

PurposeTo report one year clinical performance of two types of composite (silorane based versus methacrylate based) in class I preparations.Materials and methodsA total of 15 patients (9 female and 6 male aged 20–40 years) participated in this study where 30 class I cavities were restored with either Filtek silorane (P90) or a methacrylate based composite (Tetric EvoCeram) representing two main groups (n = 15). Each patient received at least one pair of restoration. The cavity design was restricted to eliminate primary carious lesions. All restorations were subjected to a clinical follow up schedule representing (baseline, 6 months and 12 months) during which, two investigators rated the restorations according to the modified USPHS criteria evaluating marginal integrity, surface roughness, marginal discoloration, color match, anatomic form (wear), recurrent caries, retention of restoration and postoperative sensitivity. The data were collected, tabulated and statistically analyzed at a level of significance (P ≤ 0.05) using Friedman test, Chi-square and Fisher's exact test.ResultsRegarding the clinical performance of the tested materials there was no statistical significant difference among the different recall periods in all the tested criteria in both materials and no statistical significant difference between group I versus group II at all follow up periods (P > 0.05). In addition Kappa test revealed a statistical agreement between marginal discoloration as well as color match and both marginal integrity and surface roughness (P < 0.05).Conclusion1-The clinical performance of silorane based composite (Filtek P90) was deemed acceptable after one year; with no obvious advantage compared to methacrylate based composite. 2-The low shrinkage associated with (Filtek P90) may not be a determinant factor for its high clinical performance