Clinical Performance of Different Bulkfill Restorations: 24-Month Follow-up

Objectives: To evaluate 24-month clinical performance of three different bulkfill resin restoratives in class II restorations.
Methods: Forty patients with at least three approximal lesions in premolar and molar teeth were enrolled in the study. Each patient received at random three class II restorations restored with one of the three different bulkfill resin restoratives(n=40); Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, SureFil SDR flow + Ceram X mono, everX Posterior + G-aenial Posterior with their respective adhesives. A single operator placed all restorations according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6., 12. 18. and at 24 months using modified USPHS criteria by one examiner. The restoration groups for each category were compared using the Pearson Chi-square test and the baseline scores were compared with those at the recall visits using the Cochran Q test(p<0.05).

Results: At the end of twenty-four months, ninety-four restorations were evaluated in 33 patients, with a recall rate of 82.5%. There were no statistically significant differrence among the groups in terms of retention(p>0.05). Two restorations from SDR and 4 from everX group rated exhibited slight marginal discoloration. No marginal discoloration was observed in any of Tetric Bulkfill restorations. Six restorations from Tetric Bulkfill and six from SDR group and 12 from everX group received bravo scores in terms of marginal adaptation. No difference was found among the three groups for all evaluated criteria(p>0.05). There were statistically significant difference between baseline and 24 month recalls in everX group in terms of marginal discoloration(p<0.05). For marginal adaptation, significant difference was observed between baseline and 24 months for all restorative resins(p<0.05).
Conclusions: All restorations showed satisfactory clinical performance with no differences among the three bulkfill restorative resins after 24 months.