Yusuf Bayraktar1, Ertuğrul Ercan1, Mehmet Mustafa Hamidi1, Hakan Çolak2. 1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentisty, Kırıkkale University, Kırıkkale, Turkey. 2. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentisty, Zirve University, Gaziantep, Turkey.
Abstract
AIM: In the present study, we evaluated the 1-year clinical performance of a conventional posterior composite resin and three bulk-fill composite resins. METHODS: Fifty patients with four class II restorations under occlusion were enrolled in the present study. A total of 200 restorations were placed in the cavity, 50 for each material (Clearfil Photo Posterior, Filtek Bulk-Fill Flowable and Filtek P60, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk-Fill, and SonicFill). One operator placed the restorations in the cavity, and 1 week later the patients were called for baseline examination. Two calibrated examiners evaluated the restorations once every 3 months for 1 year, according to United States Public Health Service criteria. The data were analyzed using SPSS. Non-parametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U-test, and Friedman) were used for the analysis at a confidence level of 95%. RESULTS: The 1-year recall rate was 86%. All restorations showed minor modifications after 1 year. However, no statistically-significant differences were detected between the materials' performance at baseline and after 1 year for all criteria (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The bulk-fill composite resin materials showed similar clinical performance when compared with a conventional posterior composite resin. Further evaluations are necessary for the long-term clinical performance of these materials.
AIM: In the present study, we evaluated the 1-year clinical performance of a conventional posterior composite resin and three bulk-fill composite resins. METHODS: Fifty patients with four class II restorations under occlusion were enrolled in the present study. A total of 200 restorations were placed in the cavity, 50 for each material (Clearfil Photo Posterior, Filtek Bulk-Fill Flowable and Filtek P60, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk-Fill, and SonicFill). One operator placed the restorations in the cavity, and 1 week later the patients were called for baseline examination. Two calibrated examiners evaluated the restorations once every 3 months for 1 year, according to United States Public Health Service criteria. The data were analyzed using SPSS. Non-parametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U-test, and Friedman) were used for the analysis at a confidence level of 95%. RESULTS: The 1-year recall rate was 86%. All restorations showed minor modifications after 1 year. However, no statistically-significant differences were detected between the materials' performance at baseline and after 1 year for all criteria (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The bulk-fill composite resin materials showed similar clinical performance when compared with a conventional posterior composite resin. Further evaluations are necessary for the long-term clinical performance of these materials.
Authors: Márcia de Almeida Durão; Ana Karina Maciel de Andrade; Maria do Carmo Moreira da Silva Santos; Marcos Antônio Japiassú Resende Montes; Gabriela Queiroz de Melo Monteiro Journal: Eur J Dent Date: 2020-11-26