Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2019 Oct 7:27:e20180678.
doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0678. eCollection 2019.

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

Hacer Balkaya  1 , Soley Arslan  1 , Kanşad Pala  1
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled 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

Hacer Balkaya et al. J Appl Oral Sci. .

Abstract

Objectives: Bulk-fill restorative materials such as bulk-fill composite resins and high viscous glass ionomer cements have become very popular materials in operative dentistry because their application is easy and time-saving. The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a highly viscous reinforced glass ionomer material, a bulk-fill composite resin and a micro hybrid composite resin in Class II restorations.

Methodology: In total, 109 Class II restorations were performed in 54 patients using three different restorative materials: Charisma Smart Composite (CSC); Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (FBF); Equia Forte Fil (EF). Single Bond Universal adhesive (3M ESPE, Germany) was used with composite resin restorations. The restorations were evaluated using modified USPHS criteria in terms of retention, color match, marginal discoloration, anatomic form, contact point, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity and surface texture. The data were analyzed using Chi-Square, Fischer's and McNemar's tests.

Results: At the end of one year, 103 restorations were followed up. No changes were observed during the first 6 months. At the end of one year, there were small changes in composite restorations (FBF and CSC) but no statistically significant difference was observed between the clinical performances of these materials for all criteria (p>0.05). However, there was a statistically significant difference between EF, FBF and CSC groups in all parameters except marginal discoloration, secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity in one-year evaluation (p<0.05).

Conclusion: Bulk-fill composite resins and conventional composite resins showed more successful clinical performance than highly viscous reinforced glass ionomers in Class II cavities.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Materials, compositions and batch numbers
Figure 2
Figure 2. Inclusion and exlusion criteria
Figure 3
Figure 3. Modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria used in this study
Figure 4
Figure 4. Restorations scored as “Charlie” because of marginal fracture in the EF group at one-year evaluation
Figure 5
Figure 5. Glass ionomer material loss that could be radiographically seen in the proximal area as a result of dissolution
Figure 6
Figure 6. a,b) Restorations scored as “Alpha” for all criteria in the FBF group at one-year evaluation. c,d) Restorations scored as “Alpha” for all criteria in the CSC group at one-year evaluation
Figure 7
Figure 7. Clinical appearance of some EF restorations at one-year evaluation
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Andrade AK, Duarte RM, Medeiros e Silva FD, Batista AU, Lima KC, Pontual ML, et al. 30-Month randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a nanohybrid composite. J Dent. 2011;39(1):8–15. - PubMed
    2. 1- Andrade AK, Duarte RM, Medeiros e Silva FD, Batista AU, Lima KC, Pontual ML, et al. 30-Month randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a nanohybrid composite. J Dent. 2011;39(1):8-15. - PubMed
    1. Chesterman J, Jowett A, Gallacher A, Nixon P. Bulk-fill resin-based composite restorative materials: a review. Br Dent J. 2017;222(5):337–344. - PubMed
    2. 2- Chesterman J, Jowett A, Gallacher A, Nixon P. Bulk-fill resin-based composite restorative materials: a review. Br Dent J. 2017;222(5):337-44. - PubMed
    1. Turkun LS, Aktener BO, Ates M. Clinical evaluation of different posterior resin composite materials: a 7-year report. Quintessence Int. 2003;34(6):418–426. - PubMed
    2. 3- Turkun LS, Aktener BO, Ates M. Clinical evaluation of different posterior resin composite materials: a 7-year report. Quintessence Int. 2003;34(6):418-26. - PubMed
    1. Ferracane JL, Hilton TJ. Polymerization stress: is it clinically meaningful? Dent Mater. 2016;32(1):1–10. - PubMed
    2. 4- Ferracane JL, Hilton TJ. Polymerization stress: is it clinically meaningful? Dent Mater. 2016;32(1):1-10. - PubMed
    1. Zorzin J, Maier E, Harre S, Fey T, Belli R, Lohbauer U, et al. Bulk-fill resin composites: polymerization properties and extended light curing. Dent Mater. 2015;31(3):293–301. - PubMed
    2. 5- Zorzin J, Maier E, Harre S, Fey T, Belli R, Lohbauer U, et al. Bulk-fill resin composites: polymerization properties and extended light curing. Dent Mater. 2015;31(3):293-301. - PubMed

Publication types