IADR Abstract Archives
Clinical Comparison of a 5-mm Bulk-fill and an Incremental Composite Resin Restoration: 12-month Follow-up
Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a 5-mm bulk-fill and an incremental resin composite in class II restorations.
Methods: Twenty-eight patients were included in the study and received at least one pair of posterior restorations. Teeth were restored with a 5-mm bulk-fill [FB] (Filtek™ Bulk Fill Posterior, 3M ESPE, St. Paul MN, USA) and an incremental composite resin [FU] (Filtek Ultimate Universal, 3M ESPE, St. Paul MN, USA) at each patient. The same universal adhesive system was used according to the manufacturers' instructions for all restorations. A total of 80 class II restorations were placed by one operator. The restorations were blindly evaluated by two examiners at baseline, six and 12 months using modified US Public Health Service Ryge criteria. The comparison of the two restorative materials for each category was performed with the chi-square test (α=0.05). The baseline scores were compared with those at the recall visits using the Cochran Q-test followed by McNemar’s test.
Results: After 6 months, recall rate was 100%. Five FB restorations (12.5%) and three FU restorations exhibited bravo for marginal adaptation (p > 0.05). At 12-month assessments, the recall rate was 96%. Seventy-seven restorations were evaluated and four FB restorations (10.3%) and three FU restorations (7.9%) showed bravo score (p > 0.05). Four FB restorations (10.3%) and two FU restorations (5.3%) exhibited marginal discoloration and all of the restorations showed alpha score for surface texture, colour match and sensitivity. No statistical differences were found among the tested composite resins for any criteria evaluated (p > 0.05).
McNemar’s test showed a significant change in marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration in both groups (p = 0.009, p= 0.001)
Conclusions: The two restorative systems demonstrated similar performances during the 12-month follow-up in the restoration of posterior teeth.
Methods: Twenty-eight patients were included in the study and received at least one pair of posterior restorations. Teeth were restored with a 5-mm bulk-fill [FB] (Filtek™ Bulk Fill Posterior, 3M ESPE, St. Paul MN, USA) and an incremental composite resin [FU] (Filtek Ultimate Universal, 3M ESPE, St. Paul MN, USA) at each patient. The same universal adhesive system was used according to the manufacturers' instructions for all restorations. A total of 80 class II restorations were placed by one operator. The restorations were blindly evaluated by two examiners at baseline, six and 12 months using modified US Public Health Service Ryge criteria. The comparison of the two restorative materials for each category was performed with the chi-square test (α=0.05). The baseline scores were compared with those at the recall visits using the Cochran Q-test followed by McNemar’s test.
Results: After 6 months, recall rate was 100%. Five FB restorations (12.5%) and three FU restorations exhibited bravo for marginal adaptation (p > 0.05). At 12-month assessments, the recall rate was 96%. Seventy-seven restorations were evaluated and four FB restorations (10.3%) and three FU restorations (7.9%) showed bravo score (p > 0.05). Four FB restorations (10.3%) and two FU restorations (5.3%) exhibited marginal discoloration and all of the restorations showed alpha score for surface texture, colour match and sensitivity. No statistical differences were found among the tested composite resins for any criteria evaluated (p > 0.05).
McNemar’s test showed a significant change in marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration in both groups (p = 0.009, p= 0.001)
Conclusions: The two restorative systems demonstrated similar performances during the 12-month follow-up in the restoration of posterior teeth.