Five-year clinical follow-up of bulk-fill restorative materials in class II restorations
Source abstract
Abstract
This study evaluates the 5-year clinical performance of Class II restorations performed with different bulk-fill restorative materials. In the study, Class II restorations performed with Tetric Bulk-Fill (TBF), Filtek Bulk-Fill (FBF), and Equia Forte Fil (EF) were evaluated. One hundred-nineteen restorations were included in the study. Restorations were assessed during the 6th month, 1st, 2nd, and 5th year. Cochran Q, Pearson chi-square, and Fisher-Freeman-Halton tests were used for statistical analysis. In the 5th year, significant differences were observed in terms of retention, color match, marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, surface texture, and anatomical form in all materials. There was a significant difference between EF and bulk-fill composites only in terms of retention and anatomical form. EF was significantly less successful than bulk-fill composites with regard to retention and anatomical form, but bulk-fill composites have shown similar clinical performance. EF cannot be an alternative to bulk-fill composites for Class II restorations.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Dental materials and restorations · Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments · Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Selçuk University
Private Practice
References (44)
Show source-provided references
1. 1) Laegreid T, Gjerdet NR, Johansson A, Johansson AK. Clinical decision making on extensive molar restorations. Oper Dent 2014; 39: E231-E240.10.2341/13-069-C ↗
2. 2) Lynch CD, Opdam NJ, Hickel R, Brunton PA, Gurgan S, Kakaboura A, et al. Guidance on posterior resin composites: Academy of Operative Dentistry-European Section. J Dent 2014; 42: 377-383.10.1016/j.jdent.2014.01.009 ↗
3. 3) Ferracane JL. Resin-based composite performance: are there some things we can’t predict? Dent Mater 2013; 29: 51-58.10.1016/j.dental.2012.06.013 ↗
4. 4) Kaisarly D, Gezawi ME. Polymerization shrinkage assessment of dental resin composites: A literature review. Odontology 2016; 104: 257-270.10.1007/s10266-016-0264-3 ↗
5. 5) Braga RR, Ferracane JL. Alternatives in polymerization contraction stress management. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 2004; 15: 176-184.10.1177/154411130401500306 ↗
6. 6) Kuijs RH, Fennis WMM, Kreulen CM, Barink M, Verdonschot N.Does layering minimize shrinkage stresses in composite restorations? J Dent Res 2003; 82: 967-971.10.1177/154405910308201206 ↗
7. 7) Coelho Santos MJM, Santos GC Jr, Nagem Filho H, Mondelli RFL, El-Mowafy O. Effect of light curing method on volumetric polymerization shrinkage of resin composites. Oper Dent 2004; 29: 157-161.
8. 8) Braga RR, Ballester RY, Ferracane JL. Factors involved in the development of polymerization shrinkage stress in resin-composites: A systematic review. Dent Mater 2005; 21: 962-970.10.1016/j.dental.2005.04.018 ↗
9. 9) Ferracane JL. Resin composite —State of the art. Dent Mater 2011; 27: 29-38.10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.020 ↗
10. 10) Czasch P, Ilie N. In vitro comparison of mechanical properties and degree of cure of bulk fill composites. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17: 227-235.10.1007/s00784-012-0702-8 ↗
11. 11) Ilie N, Keßler A, Durner J. Influence of various irradiation processes on the mechanical properties and polymerisation kinetics of bulk-fill resin based composites. J Dent 2013; 41: 695-702.10.1016/j.jdent.2013.05.008 ↗
12. 12) Li X, Pongprueksa P, Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J. Curing profile of bulk-fill resin-based composites. J Dent 2015; 43: 664-672.10.1016/j.jdent.2015.01.002 ↗
13. 13) Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E, Oztas SS, Cakir FY. Four-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system. Oper Dent 2015; 40: 134-143.10.2341/13-239-C ↗
14. 14) Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E, Oztas SS, Cakir FY. Clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system: A 6-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig 2017; 21: 2335-2343.10.1007/s00784-016-2028-4 ↗
15. 15) Burke FJT. Dental materials —What goes where? The current status of glass ionomer as a material for loadbearing restorations in posterior teeth. Dent Update 2013; 40: 840-844.10.12968/denu.2013.40.10.840 ↗
16. 16) Berg JH, Croll TP. Glass ionomer restorative cement systems: An update. Pediatr Dent 2015; 37: 116-124.
17. 17) Friedl K, Hiller KA, Friedl KH. Clinical performance of a new glass ionomer based restoration system: A retrospective cohort study. Dent Mater 2011; 27: 1031-1037.10.1016/j.dental.2011.07.004 ↗
18. 18) Çelik EU, Tunac AT, Yilmaz F. A randomized, controlled, split-mouth trial evaluating the clinical performance of high-viscosity glass-ionomer restorations in noncarious cervical lesions: Two-year results. J Adhes Dent 2018; 20: 299-305.
19. 19) Bagheri R, Palamara J, Mese A, Manton DJ. Effect of a self-adhesive coating on the load-bearing capacity of tooth-coloured restorative materials. Aust Dent J 2017; 62: 71-78.10.1111/adj.12432 ↗
20. 20) Kielbassa AM, Glockner G, Wolgin M, Glockner K. Systematic review on highly viscous glass-ionomer cement/resin coating restorations (Part I): Do they merge Minamata Convention and minimum intervention dentistry? Quintessence Int 2016; 47: 813-823.
21. 21) Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V. Failure rate of direct high-viscosity glass-ionomer versus hybrid resin composite restorations in posterior permanent teeth —A systematic review. Open Dent J 2015; 9: 438-448.10.2174/1874210601509010438 ↗
22. 22) Mickenautsch S. Research gaps identified during systematic reviews of clinical trials: Glass-ionomer cements. BMC Oral Health 2012; 12: 18.10.1186/1472-6831-12-18 ↗
23. 23) Wafaie RA, Ibrahim Ali A, El-Negoly SAER, Mahmoud SH. Five-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of high-viscosity glass ionomer restorative systems in small class II restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent 2023; 35: 538-555.10.1111/jerd.13000 ↗
24. 24) Cvar JF, Ryge G. Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971. Clin Oral Investig 2005; 9: 215-232.10.1007/s00784-005-0018-z ↗
25. 25) Mahmoud SH, El-Embaby AE, AbdAllah AM. Clinical performance of ormocer, nanofilled, and nanoceramic resin composites in class I and class II restorations: A three-year evaluation. Oper Dent 2014; 39: 32-42.10.2341/12-313-C ↗
26. 26) Gürses M, İnan B, Çobanoğlu N. Clinical evaluation of class II restorations made with bulk-fill restorative materials. Bezmialem Sci 2023; 11: 141-150.10.14235/bas.galenos.2022.94103 ↗
27. 27) Guney T, Yazici AR. 24-month clinical evaluation of different bulk-fill restorative resins in class II restorations. Oper Dent 2020; 45: 123-133.10.2341/18-144-C ↗
28. 28) Ástvaldsdóttir Á, Dagerhamn J, van Dijken JW, Naimi-Akbar A, Sandborgh-Englund G, Tranæus S, et al. Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in adults —A systematic review. J Dent 2015; 43: 934-954.10.1016/j.jdent.2015.05.001 ↗
29. 29) van Dijken JWV, Lindberg A. A 15-year randomized controlled study of a reduced shrinkage stress resin composite. Dent Mater 2015; 31: 1150-1158.10.1016/j.dental.2015.06.012 ↗
30. 30) van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U. A randomized 10-year prospective follow-up of class II nanohybrid and conventional hybrid resin composite restorations. J Adhes Dent 2014; 16: 585-592.
31. 31) Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Yalcin Cakir F, Ergin E. A randomized controlled 10 years follow up of a glass ionomer restorative material in class I and class II cavities. J Dent 2020; 94: 103175.10.1016/j.jdent.2019.07.013 ↗
32. 32) Balkaya H, Arslan S. A two-year clinical comparison of three different restorative materials in class II cavities. Oper Dent 2020; 45: E32-E42.10.2341/19-078-C ↗
33. 33) Heck K, Frasheri I, Diegritz C, Manhart J, Hickel R, Fotiadou C.Six-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial of two glass ionomer cements in class II cavities. J Dent 2020; 97: 103333.10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103333 ↗
34. 34) Tal E, Kupietzky A, Fuks AB, Tickotsky N, Moskovitz M. Clinical performance of heat-cured high-viscosity glass ionomer class II restorations in primary molars: A preliminary study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2017; 41: 264-270.10.17796/1053-4628-41.4.264 ↗
35. 35) Scholtanus JD, Huysmans MCDNJM. Clinical failure of class-II restorations of a highly viscous glass-ionomer material over a 6-year period: A retrospective study. J Dent 2007; 35: 156-162.10.1016/j.jdent.2006.07.006 ↗
36. 36) Sidhu SK. Glass-ionomer cement restorative materials: A sticky subject? Aust Dent J 2011; 56 Suppl 1: 23-30.10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01293.x ↗
37. 37) Miletić I, Baraba A, Krmek SJ, Perić T, Marković D, Basso M, et al. 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. Clin Oral Investig 2024; 28: 104.10.1007/s00784-024-05491-y ↗
38. 38) Colak H, Tokay U, Uzgur R, Hamidi MM, Ercan E. 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. Niger J Clin Pract 2017; 20: 822-831.10.4103/1119-3077.212449 ↗
39. 39) Durão M de A, Andrade AKM de, Santos M do CM da S, Montes MAJR, Monteiro GQ de M. Clinical performance of bulk-fill resin composite restorations using the United States Public Health Service and Federation Dentaire Internationale criteria: A 12-month randomized clinical trial. Eur J Dent 2021; 15: 179-192.10.1055/s-0040-1718639 ↗
40. 40) Yazici AR, Uslu Tekce A, Kutuk ZB. Comparative evaluation of different adhesive strategies of a universal adhesive in class II bulk-fill restorations: A 48-month randomized controlled trial. J Dent 2022; 117: 103921.10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103921 ↗
41. 41) Yazici AR, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E, Karahan S, Antonson SA. Six-year clinical evaluation of bulk-fill and nanofill resin composite restorations. Clin Oral Investig 2022; 26: 417-426.10.1007/s00784-021-04015-2 ↗
42. 42) Sekundo C, Fazeli S, Felten A, Schoilew K, Wolff D, Frese C. A randomized clinical split-mouth trial of a bulk-fill and a nanohybrid composite restorative in class II cavities: Three-year results. Dent Mater 2022; 38: 759-768.10.1016/j.dental.2022.04.019 ↗
43. 43) Schoilew K, Fazeli S, Felten A, Sekundo C, Wolff D, Frese C. Clinical evaluation of bulk-fill and universal nanocomposites in class II cavities: Five-year results of a randomized clinical split-mouth trial. J Dent 2023; 128: 104362.10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104362 ↗
44. 44) Çakır Kılınç NN, Demirbuğa S. 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. Clin Oral Investig 2023; 27: 541-557.10.1007/s00784-022-04749-7 ↗