COMPARISON OF TWO UNIVERSAL COMPOSITES IN POSTERIOR TEETH: PRELIMINARY REPORT

Objectives: The aim of this randomized, prospective clinical study was to compare the clinical performance of a universal light-curing, ultra-fine particle hybrid composite with a new version of this product produced by the same manufacturer in Class 1 and Class 2 lesions over six-months.
Methods: A total of 80 (13 Class 1 and 67 Class 2) lesions in 40 patients (21 females, 19 males) with ages ranging between 18-38 years (23.15±5.15) were either restored with Charisma or Charisma Classic (Heraeus Kulzer) in combination with an etch and rinse adhesive system (Gluma 2 Bond) under rubber dam isolation by two experienced operators according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Two independent examiners, who were blinded to the composites used evaluated the restorations at baseline and at 6 months postrestoration according to the FDI criteria. Bite-wing radiographs and intraoral digital photographs were taken before and after treatment and at 6 months. Impressions were taken of the relevant arches using polyvinyl siloxane material. Epoxy resin replicas were prepared at baseline and 6 months recall for the assessment of wear and marginal adaptation under scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The statistical analyses were carried out with McNemar, Pearson Chi-square and Cochran Q tests (p<0.05).
Results: After six months, recall rate was 100%. All restorations were rated as score 1 for esthetic, functional and biological properties. There were no significant differences between the groups for any criteria evaluated at six months (p<0.05). SEM evaluations were in accordance with the clinical findings.
Conclusions: The use of both materials for the restoration of posterior teeth exhibited similar clinically successful performance at six months.