Abstract:Objective This randomized controlled clinical trial compared the clinical efficacy of self‐adhesive bulk‐fill Surefil One with a traditional bulk‐fill composite in class II restorations. Materials and Methods Sixty‐four direct class II composite restorations were categorized into two groups. Group I, control group (n = 32): cavities were restored by Filtek One bulk‐fill composite with Scotchbond Universal (SBU) adhesive in self‐etch mode, Group II, test group (n = 32): cavities were restored by Surefil One self‐adhesive bulk‐fill composite. The study involved a follow‐up period of 1 year, during which restorations were assessed at baseline (BL), 6 months, and 12 months using Federation Dentaire Internationale (FDI) criteria. Data analysis was performed using nonparametric tests. A comparison of restoration characteristics was performed utilizing the chi‐square test (X2). The significance level was set at 0.05. Results Filtek One and Surefil One bulk‐fill composites revealed clinically acceptable FDI scores over 12‐month recalls. Thirty‐two patients (64 restorations) were available for all follow‐up visits; 100% of the restorations survived. For esthetic properties, Filtek One was far better than Surefil One at all time points. However, in terms of functional and biological properties, both restorations demonstrated comparable performances. Conclusions Filtek One bulk‐fill restorations were superior in terms of surface luster, surface staining, color match, and translucency, but Surefil One restorations performed well and were similar to Filtek One restorations; however, additional advancements and research are needed to obtain better esthetics. Furthermore, longitudinal studies with extended follow‐up periods are needed to assess the clinical potential of both materials. Clinical Significance Both Filtek One and Surefil One met the FDI criteria, with Filtek One demonstrating superior esthetic and functional qualities and similar performance regarding biological criteria. Both innovative restorative materials show potential for clinical use. Trial registered on ClinicalTrials.gov under registration number; NCT06120868:07/11/2023.

The influence of different placement techniques on the clinical success of bulk-fill resin composites placed in Class II cavities: a 4-year randomized controlled clinical study

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

Evaluation of Glass-Ionomer versus Bulk-Fill Resin Composite: A Two-Year Randomized Clinical Study

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

Two-year evaluation of a nano-hybrid and a bulk-fill resin composite: a randomized, double-blind split-mouth clinical study

Influence of Different Placement Techniques of Bulk-fill Resin Composite on Microleakage of Class II Cavity Preparation

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

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

Clinical, radiographic and biochemical assessment of proximal cavities restored with composite resin using incremental vs. bulk packing techniques: One-year randomized clinical trial

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 “Snowplow” technique versus Bulk-fill technique in restoration of class II cavities: A randomized clinical trial

One-year clinical evaluation of class II bulk-fill restorations in primary molars: a randomized clinical trial

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

Is the clinical performance of incremental and bulk-fill resin composite different?

Two-year clinical performance of indirect resin composite restorations in endodontically treated teeth with different cavity preparation designs: a randomized clinical trial

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

The clinical performance of bulk-fill versus the incremental layered application of direct resin composite restorations: a systematic review

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

Clinical evaluation of direct resin composite restorations of endodontically treated molars using dual cured self-adhesive system with bulk fill composite versus incremental packing technique

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

Bulk-Fill Ormocer versus Methacrylate-Based Resin Composite Restorative Systems: The Effect of Flowable Lining on Two-Year Clinical Performance in Class II Cavities