{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0343796711509716, 'fraction_numerical': 0.020179372197309416, 'mean_word_length': 5.695, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Microleakage evaluation of silorane based composite versus methacrylate based composite

Aim: Our study aimed to analyze the microleakage of silorane-based composite in comparison to two homologous methacrylate-based composites. Materials and Methods: Standardized class I cavities (4 × 2.5 × 3 mm) were prepared on extracted human premolars and randomly assigned into three groups (N = 15) as follows: Group A, Filtek P90 (silorane) with its dedicated adhesive system (P90 system adhesive); Group B, Adper SE Plus with Filtek Z250; Group C, Peak SE with Amelogen Plus. The teeth were subjected to thermocycling regime (200×, 5–55°C) and dye penetration of tooth sections were evaluated following 30 minute immersion in 2% Methylene Blue dye. Statistical analysis was performed with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U test at 95% significance level. Results: Silorane exhibited significantly decreased microleakage compared with any other resin based composite (RBC). The cavities restored with Amelogen Plus displayed nonsignificantly higher microleakage than with Filtek Z250. Conclusion: Although all of the restorative systems had microleakage, silorane technology showed less microleakage comparable to clinically successful methacrylate-based composite. This will improve the clinical performance and extend the composite durability.