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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sixty-month comperative evaluation of a glass hybrid restorative and a composite resin in non-carious cervical lesions of bruxist individuals

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

Clinical performance of a glass-hybrid system in comparison with a resin composite in two-surface class II restorations: a 5-year randomised multi-centre study

Two‐year clinical performance of indirect restorations fabricated from CAD/CAM nano hybrid composite versus lithium disilicate in mutilated vital teeth. A randomized controlled trial

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

Clinical Performance and Wear Resistance of Highly Translucent Nano Zirconia Reinforced Glass Ionomer Filling Versus Conventional Resin Composite Restorations in Patients with Proximal Carious Teeth: Randomized Clinical Trial

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

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

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 short fiber reinforced composite and glass hybrid on hypomineralized molars: A 36-month randomized split-mouth study

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