A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results

• Published in: Journal of applied oral science Vol. 27; p. e20180678
• Main Authors: Balkaya, Hacer, Arslan, Soley, Pala, Kanşad
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Faculdade De Odontologia De Bauru - USP 01.01.2019; University of São Paulo
• Subjects: Clinical trial; Composite resins; DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE; Glass ionomer cements; Original; Composite resins; Clinical trial; Glass ionomer cements
• ISSN: 1678-7757; 1678-7765; 1678-7765
• DOI: 10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0678

Bulk-fill restorative materials such as bulk-fill composite resins and high viscous glass ionomer cements have become very popular materials in operative dentistry because their application is easy and time-saving. The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a highly viscous reinforced glass ionomer material, a bulk-fill composite resin and a micro hybrid composite resin in Class II restorations.OBJECTIVESBulk-fill restorative materials such as bulk-fill composite resins and high viscous glass ionomer cements have become very popular materials in operative dentistry because their application is easy and time-saving. The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a highly viscous reinforced glass ionomer material, a bulk-fill composite resin and a micro hybrid composite resin in Class II restorations.In total, 109 Class II restorations were performed in 54 patients using three different restorative materials: Charisma Smart Composite (CSC); Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (FBF); Equia Forte Fil (EF). Single Bond Universal adhesive (3M ESPE, Germany) was used with composite resin restorations. The restorations were evaluated using modified USPHS criteria in terms of retention, color match, marginal discoloration, anatomic form, contact point, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity and surface texture. The data were analyzed using Chi-Square, Fischer's and McNemar's tests.METHODOLOGYIn total, 109 Class II restorations were performed in 54 patients using three different restorative materials: Charisma Smart Composite (CSC); Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (FBF); Equia Forte Fil (EF). Single Bond Universal adhesive (3M ESPE, Germany) was used with composite resin restorations. The restorations were evaluated using modified USPHS criteria in terms of retention, color match, marginal discoloration, anatomic form, contact point, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity and surface texture. The data were analyzed using Chi-Square, Fischer's and McNemar's tests.At the end of one year, 103 restorations were followed up. No changes were observed during the first 6 months. At the end of one year, there were small changes in composite restorations (FBF and CSC) but no statistically significant difference was observed between the clinical performances of these materials for all criteria (p>0.05). However, there was a statistically significant difference between EF, FBF and CSC groups in all parameters except marginal discoloration, secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity in one-year evaluation (p<0.05).RESULTSAt the end of one year, 103 restorations were followed up. No changes were observed during the first 6 months. At the end of one year, there were small changes in composite restorations (FBF and CSC) but no statistically significant difference was observed between the clinical performances of these materials for all criteria (p>0.05). However, there was a statistically significant difference between EF, FBF and CSC groups in all parameters except marginal discoloration, secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity in one-year evaluation (p<0.05).Bulk-fill composite resins and conventional composite resins showed more successful clinical performance than highly viscous reinforced glass ionomers in Class II cavities.CONCLUSIONBulk-fill composite resins and conventional composite resins showed more successful clinical performance than highly viscous reinforced glass ionomers in Class II cavities.