Methods: A total of 54 patients participated and randomly received two restorations, one with Heraeus Kulzer Venus® Diamond (VD), and the other with 3M™ESPE™Filtek™Supreme Plus (FSP). Both restorations were completed using rubber dam and the same adhesive system, curing light, and methods of contouring and polishing. At base-line and at 24 months patients received a clinical evaluation and were asked about their perception of the esthetics, sensitivity, chewing pain and temperature sensation. Evaluators were blinded to which composite was used and who placed the restorations. One evaluator did a clinical evaluation and recorded plaque index, gingival index, probing depths, bleeding index, recession, mobility, and response to EPT. Two evaluators performed independent exams completing the modified USPHS/Ryge/Hickel Criteria to assess: color match, anatomic form, marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, surface roughness/luster, surface staining, and caries. Consensus was met.
Results: At 24 months there was a 76% recall rate from baseline, 61% female, mean age 40. Both composites performed similar in regards to patient perception of esthetics. Perceived sensitivity and pain with temperature was lower than at the baseline visit for both composites. One restoration from each composite group fractured, and both materials had a decline in shade match discrepancies. Both materials performed similarly in regards to: marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, surface roughness, and caries. VD only had alpha calls for surface staining at the 24-month evaluation while 5 of the 40 FSP restorations received a bravo call.
Conclusion: Both VD and FSP showed a similar good performance in regards to esthetic and functional outcomes after 24 months. VD may result in less long term surface staining.