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.

Clinical assessment of thermo-viscous versus conventional bulk-fill resin composites in proximal compound posterior restorations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clinical evaluation of posterior flowable short fiber-reinforced composite restorations without proximal surface coverage

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

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

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

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

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

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