PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical performance of a flowable bulk-fill composite vs a compomer in Class II cavities of primary molars. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a clinical study, 100 restorations were placed in two randomly assigned comparable Class II cavities in 32 children (aged 6.7 ± 1.2 years) with at least one bulk-fill composite (Venus Bulk Fill, Heraeus Kulzer) and one compomer (Dyract eXtra, Dentsply). After caries excavation, the adhesive Scotchbond Universal (3M Oral Care) was applied in self-etching mode. According to the manufacturer's instructions, Venus Bulk Fill was used for the entire Class II cavity of primary molars without a cover layer. After visible-light curing, both restorations were finished and polished. Both restorative materials were evaluated at baseline and after one year, including esthetic, functional, and biological parameters, using the FDI criteria. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used to determine the difference in the complete scores at baseline and after one year (p < 0.05). RESULTS: After one year, 99 restorations were reevaluated; one tooth had exfoliated physiologically. Concerning the esthetic parameters, Dyract eXtra showed slightly higher scores than Venus Bulk Fill. Both materials showed similar scores regarding functional and biological parameters. No severe postoperative sensitivities or side-effects were reported. There was no statistically significant difference between the performance of Venus Bulk Fill and Dyract eXtra for primary molars. CONCLUSION: The flowable bulk-fill composite Venus Bulk Fill can be considered as an alternative material for clinical use in primary teeth, but longer-term studies might still be needed.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical performance of a flowable bulk-fill composite vs a compomer in Class II cavities of primary molars. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a clinical study, 100 restorations were placed in two randomly assigned comparable Class II cavities in 32 children (aged 6.7 ± 1.2 years) with at least one bulk-fill composite (Venus Bulk Fill, Heraeus Kulzer) and one compomer (Dyract eXtra, Dentsply). After caries excavation, the adhesive Scotchbond Universal (3M Oral Care) was applied in self-etching mode. According to the manufacturer's instructions, Venus Bulk Fill was used for the entire Class II cavity of primary molars without a cover layer. After visible-light curing, both restorations were finished and polished. Both restorative materials were evaluated at baseline and after one year, including esthetic, functional, and biological parameters, using the FDI criteria. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used to determine the difference in the complete scores at baseline and after one year (p < 0.05). RESULTS: After one year, 99 restorations were reevaluated; one tooth had exfoliated physiologically. Concerning the esthetic parameters, Dyract eXtra showed slightly higher scores than Venus Bulk Fill. Both materials showed similar scores regarding functional and biological parameters. No severe postoperative sensitivities or side-effects were reported. There was no statistically significant difference between the performance of Venus Bulk Fill and Dyract eXtra for primary molars. CONCLUSION: The flowable bulk-fill composite Venus Bulk Fill can be considered as an alternative material for clinical use in primary teeth, but longer-term studies might still be needed.
Entities:
Keywords:
Class II restoration; clinical study; compomer; flowable bulk-fill composite; one-step adhesives; pediatric dentistry; restorative materials