Evaluation of Bulkfilled and Nanofilled Composite in Class-II Restorations:18-Month Results
Objectives: To compare the 18-month clinical performance of a bulk-filled and a nanofilled resin composite in Class II restorations.
Methods: Fifty patients with at least two similar-sized approximal lesions in posterior teeth participated in the study. A total of 104 Class II restorations were placed: 52 with nanofilled composite (Filtek Ultimate), 52 with bulk-filled resin composite (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill). Filtek Ultimate was used with its’ respective adhesive, Adper Single Bond 2, while Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill was used with its’ adhesive, ExciTE-F according to the manufacturers’ instructions. All restorations were placed by two operators. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6, 12 and 18 months according to modified Ryge/USPHS criteria by two calibrated examiners. The comparison of the two restorative materials for each category was performed with the chi-square test(α=0.05).
Results: At 6 months recall, the retention rate was 100% for all restorative resins. All evaluated criteria rated as Alpha for all restorations. Only one restoration from Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill group showed postoperative sensitivity. At 12-months, the recall rate was 98%. Two restorations from the Filtek Ultimate group were rated Bravo for color match. The same patient suffered from mild postoperative sensitivity form Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill group. All restoration were rated Alpha for rest of the criteria tested. At 18-months, 98 restorations were evaluated in 47 patients, with a recall rate of 94% and retention rate of 100%. Two restorations showed slight marginal discoloration and one restoration rated Bravo in terms of marginal adaptation from Filtek Ultimate group. The same two restorations from Filtek Ultimate group were rated Bravo for color match. No differences were observed between the restorative resins(p>0.05). None of the restorations showed postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries, or loss of anatomic form.
Conclusions: Both restorative resins performed equally well clinically during 18-month evaluation.