Eighteen Month Clinical Evaluation of Different Bulkfill Restorative Resins

Objectives: To evaluate 18-month clinical performance of three different bulkfill restorative resins in class II restorations.
Methods: Forty patients with at least three approximal lesions in premolar and molar teeth participated in the study. A total of 120 Class II cavities were restored using three different types of restorative resins; GroupI-Tetric EvoCeram BulkFill; GroupII-SureFil SDR flow + CeramX mono; Group III-everX Posterior + G-aenial Posterior with their respective adhesives according to the manufacturer’s instructions(n=40). The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6.,12. and 18.month using modified USPHS criteria. The restorations for each criteria were compared using “Pearson Chi-square test”. “Cochran-Q test” was used to compare the changes accross different time points within each restorative material(p< 0.05).
Results: After eighteen month, 109 restorations were evaluated in 38 patients, with a recall rate of 95%. One restoration was lost from group I and two from group II. There were no statistically significant differrences among the groups in terms of retention(p>0.05). For marginal discoloration, one restoration from group II, two from group III were rated bravo. In terms of marginal adaptation five restorations from group I and II, and eleven restorations from group III were rated bravo. Two restorations from group II and III were rated bravo for surface texture. Two restorations in group III were rated bravo for color match. Antomic form was evaluated as bravo in one restoration from group III. Postoperative sensitivity occurred in one restoration from group II and III. No differences were observed between the groups for any of the evaluation criteria tested(p>0.05). Statistically significant differences were found only in terms of marginal adaptation between baseline and 18.month in group I and II and between baseline and all evaluation periods in group III (p<0.05).
Conclusions: All tested bulkfilled restorative resins performed similar and acceptable clinical performance during 18 month evaluation.