Abstract:The aim of the present study was to evaluate the three-year clinical performance of a nanofilled resin composite, a packable resin composite, and silorane-based resin restorations in Class I occlusal cavities. Twenty-eight patients with at least three similar-sized occlusal lesions in molar teeth participated in the study. A total of 84 Class I occlusal restorations were placed: 28 with nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Supreme), 28 with packable resin composite (P60), and 28 with silorane-based resin (Filtek Silorane). Filtek Supreme and P60 were used with their respective etch-and-rinse adhesive system, Adper Single Bond 2, and Filtek Silorane was used with its respective self-etch adhesive, Filtek Silorane Adhesive. All restorations were placed by the same operator. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, at six months, and annually for three years according to modified US Public Health Service criteria by two calibrated examiners who did not know which restorative resin had been used. The three restorative materials for each category were compared using the χ (2) test at a significance level of 0.05. Cochran's Q test was used to compare the changes across the five time points for each restorative material. McNemar's test followed by Bonferroni adjustment was used when significance differences were found. At the end of the three years, 60 restorations were evaluated in 20 patients, with a recall rate of 71.4%. The retention rate was 100% for all restorative resins. Eight restorations from the P60 group, ten from the Filtek Supreme group, and nine from the Filtek Silorane group were rated Bravo for marginal discoloration. For marginal adaptation, three P60, five Filtek Supreme, and 11 Filtek Silorane restorations were rated Bravo. No statistically significant differences in overall clinical performance were found between the restorative materials except for marginal adaptation. P60 showed the best marginal adaptation at the end of the three years. No differences were observed between the restorative resins for any of the evaluation criteria tested (p>0.05). None of the restorations showed postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries, or loss of anatomic form. All restorative resins performed equally well in clinical conditions during the three-year evaluation, and no significant differences were found among them, except for marginal adaptation, in which P60 showed superior results.

Evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin composites in Class I restorations: three-year results of a randomized, double-blind and controlled clinical trial.

Three-year clinical evaluation of different restorative resins in class I restorations

Three Years Clinical Evaluation of Self-Eching Primer and Composite Resin on Posterior ClassⅠ Restorations

Clinical evaluation of Giomer and self-etch adhesive compared with nanofilled resin composite and etch-and-rinse adhesive – Results at 8 years

Preliminary Clinical Evaluation of Short Fiber-Reinforced Composite Resin in Posterior Teeth: 12-Months Report

A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results

Clinical performance of two ion‐releasing bulk‐fill composites in class I and class II restorations: A two‐year evaluation

Randomized prospective clinical trial of class II restorations using flowable bulk-fill resin composites: 4-year follow-up

Clinical comparison of high‐viscosity glass‐hybrid systems with a sculptable bulk‐fill composite resin in different cavity types

Influence of Cavity Lining on the 3-Year Clinical Outcome of Posterior Composite Restorations: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Placental metastasis from primary ocular melanoma: a case report.

Differential effects of chemical and physical restraint on carbohydrate tolerance testing in nonhuman primates.

Clinical evaluation of bulk-fill and universal nanocomposites in class II cavities: Five-year results of a randomized clinical split-mouth trial

One-year results of a novel self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative and a conventional bulk-fill composite in class II cavities—a randomized clinical split-mouth study

Comparison of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment and Conventional Restorative Procedures in A Hospital Clinic: Evaluation after 30 Months

A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial of one nano-hybrid and one high-viscosity bulk-fill composite restorative systems in class II cavities: 12 months results

Cruzipain Induces Both Mucosal and Systemic Protection against Trypanosoma cruzi in Mice

TWO YEARS CLINICAL EVALUATION OF A BULK FILL COMPOSITE RESIN COMPARED WITH A NANOHYBRIDE INCREMENTAL FILL COMPOSITE RESIN IN CLASS ΙΙ CAVITIES

[Clinical Evaluation of Gingival Composite Resin Restoring Cervical Defects in Anterior Teeth].

Comparative clinical evaluation between self‐adhesive and conventional bulk‐fill composites in class II cavities: A 1‐year randomized controlled clinical study