Method: Twentyfive patients received at least one pair of class I restorations (n=65 in total) in a randomized way. Superficial class I cavities were prepared and filled either with a self-adhering flowable resin composite (VertiseFlow/Kerr) in Group-1 (n=33), or with a flowable resin composite (Luxaflow/DMG) in combination with an etch&rinse adhesive (Teco/DMG) in Group-2 (n=32) according to the manufacturers' instructions by 2 calibrated operators. After an 18-month period, 65 restorations of 25 patients were evaluated according to the FDI criteria, forming a score-range of 1- 5 (1-Clinically excellent / very good, 2-Clinically good, 3-Clinically sufficient / satisfactory, 4-Clinically unsatisfactory and 5-Clinically poor). Statistical analysis was carried out with Chi - Square test (p=0.05).
Result: Six restorations (18.18%) from Group-1 and 3 restorations (9.375%) from Group-2 exhibited minor marginal staining, easily removable by polishing (Score 2). Three restorations in Group-1 (9.09%) have aesthetically unacceptable marginal staining (Score 3) whereas 2 restorations in Group-2 (6.25%) exhibited minimal deteriorations in surface luster (Score 2). Thirteen restorations (39.39%) from Group-1 and 11 restorations (34.375%) from Group-2 were scored as 2 with minor irregularities in marginal adaptation (Score 2). However, there were no significant differences between two restorative materials, in relation to: surface and marginal staining and marginal adaptation (p>0.05). All the restorations in both groups were clinically very good (Score 1) for the surface luster, color match and translucency, anatomic form, fracture of material and retention, recurrence of caries and tooth integrity.
Conclusion: The use of both materials for the restoration of Class-I cavities showed a similar and clinically acceptable performance at the end of 18 months.