Abstract:Objective This 24-month, double-blind, split-mouth randomized equivalence clinical trial compared the retention rates of a bulk-fill thermoviscous composite resin using two different preheating methods for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs). Material and Methods A total of 120 NCCLs were randomized into two groups (n = 60 each). In one group, a bulk-fill thermoviscous composite resin (VisCalor bulk, Voco GmbH) was preheated using a dispenser heater (DH, VisCalor Caps dispenser/warmer), while in the other group, the same resin was preheated with a bench heater (BH, Caps Warmer). In the BH group, the composite underwent preheating at 68°C using a heating bench for 3 min while in the DH group, the composite was preheated at the same temperature for 30 s using a dispenser heater. Subsequently, the preheated bulk-fill thermoviscous composite resin was directly applied to the NCCLs. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, and after 6, 12, 18, and 24 months of clinical service using the FDI criteria. The total working time was recorded. The study used TOST-P to assess groups equivalence, Kaplan-Meier analysis for retention/fracture rate, log-rank test for secondary outcomes' survival distributions, and paired t-tests for comparing time per clinical step between groups (α = 0.05). Results After 24 months, 106 restorations were evaluated. Four restorations were lost—two from the DH group and two from the BH group—resulting in similar retention rates for both groups (96.1%, 95% CI 86.8 - 98.9, p > 0.05). The hazard ratio was 0.83 (95% CI 0.26 to 2.72), indicating no significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05). All other FDI parameters were deemed clinically acceptable. However, the total working time for the BH group was significantly longer than that for the DH group (p < 0.001). Conclusions Both preheating protocols employed for the bulk-fill thermoviscous composite resin demonstrated high and equivalent retention rates after 24 months, the other FDI parameters were deemed clinically acceptable over the same period. Clinical Significance Clinicians can choose either method for heating the thermoviscous composite resin for restoration of non-carious cervical lesions, as they do not impact important clinical outcomes after 24 months. The total working time for the bench heater is higher than that for the dispenser heater due to the need for preheating of the bench heater.

The Clinical Performance of Dental Resin Composite Repeatedly Preheated: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

24 Months clinical prospective of proximal restorations with repeated preheating bulk fill composite up to ten cycles: randomized controlled trial

Temperature change of the pulpal floor and restoration with preheated bis-GMA free and containing resin composite (a randomized clinical trial)

One-year clinical evaluation of bulk-fill composite resin restorations plasticized by preheating and ultrasonics: A randomized clinical trial

Clinical performance of preheating thermoviscous composite resin for non-carious cervical lesions restoration: a 24-month randomized clinical trial

Evaluation of Preheating Methods for Bulk-Fill Thermoviscous Composite in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions: A 24-month Randomized Controlled Trial

Composite Resin Preheating Techniques for Cementation of Indirect Restorations

Heating and preheating of dental restorative materials—a systematic review

Impact of repeated preheating of bulk-fill resin composite on postoperative hypersensitivity; a randomized controlled clinical trial

Optimizing fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with preheated thermos-viscous composite post-thermocycling, a comparative study. Part I

Clinical performance and wear resistance of milled resin composite material versus direct nanohybrid bulk-fill resin composite in the restoration of endodontically treated posterior teeth over 1 year: Randomized clinical trial

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

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

Post-curing in dental resin-based composites

Does Preheating Influence the Cytotoxic Potential of Dental Resin Composites?

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

Effect of Repeated Preheating and Light Curing Distance on Flexural Strength and Degree of Conversion of Two Resin-Based Materials

Clinical performance of different bulk‐fill composite resin systems in class II cavities: A 2‐year randomized clinical trial

Effect of preheating and curing lamp distance on the degree of conversion of four nanohybrid resins: An in vitro study

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