Clinical performance of posterior composite resin restorations. A randomized controlled three year evaluation of "bulk-filled" posterior resin restorations based on stress decreasing resin technology. 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 Two-year clinical performance of sonic-resin placement system in posterior restorations. A practice-based, randomized, controlled clinical trial of a new resin composite restorative: one-year results. A thirty months clinical evaluation of a posterior composite resin in primary molars. Randomized 3-year clinical evaluation of Class I and II posterior resin restorations placed with a bulk-fill resin composite and a one-step self-etching adhesive. Clinical performance of novel resin composites in posterior teeth: 18-month results. Clinical evaluation of two posterior composite resins: two-year results. Bulk‐filled posterior resin restorations based on stress‐decreasing resin technology: a randomized, controlled 6‐year evaluation The clinical performance of a posterior composite resin restorative material, Heliomolar R.O.: 3-year report. 56-month clinical performance of Class I and II resin composite restorations One year clinical evaluation of two different types of composite resins in posterior teeth. Three-year clinical evaluation of a self-cured posterior composite resin. Clinical evaluation of polyacid-modified resin composite posterior restorations: one-year results. Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid posterior resin-based composites: results at 3.5 years. Clinical evaluation of two packable resin-based composite restorations: a three-year report.
Two formulations of posterior composite resin ( P-30 and Bisfil-P ) were evaluated and compared to a high-copper , dispersed-phase amalgam ( Dispersalloy ) .  One hundred twenty-eight restorations were placed in 27 patients so that each patient received at least one of each material . After 3 years of clinical service , all three restorative material s produced clinical ly acceptable restorations , according to US Public Health Service and Leinfelder criteria . The amalgam restorations , however , underwent less wear ( 44 microns ) than did the posterior composite resin restorations ( 60 to 74 microns ) . Stratification of data by type of tooth , class of restoration , and size of restoration produced the same ranking of wear from lowest to highest : Dispersalloy , Bisfil-P , and P-30 . Resin restorations showed 45 % more wear in molars than in premolars , and more wear was associated with moderately sized restorations than with conservative restorations . The surface texture of restorations of composite resin with porous strontium glass filler was nearly as smooth as that of enamel and was significantly smoother than that of the restorations of composite resin with zinc glass filler or of unpolished amalgam OBJECTIVE The objective of this r and omized controlled prospect i ve clinical trial was to evaluate the efficacy of a flowable resin composite ( SDR ) bulk fill technique in posterior restorations and to compare it intraindividually with a conventional 2 mm resin composite curing technique in a 3-year follow up . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Thirty-eight pairs Class II and 15 pairs Class I restorations were placed in 38 patients with a mean age of 55.3 years ( range 32 - 87 ) . Each patient received at r and om at least two , as similar as possible , Class II or Class I restorations of two restorative techniques . In all cavities a single step self-etch adhesive ( Xeno V ) was applied . In one of the cavities of each pair , a flowable resin composite ( SDR ) was placed , in bulk increments up to 4 mm as needed to fill the cavity 2 mm short of the occlusal cavosurface . The occlusal part was completed with a nano-hybrid resin composite ( Ceram X mono ) layer . In the second cavity , the hybrid resin composite was placed in 2 mm increments . The restorations were evaluated using slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and then yearly during 3 years . Caries risk and parafunctional habits of the participants were estimated . RESULTS After three years , 76 Class II and 28 Class I restorations could be observed . One molar resin composite-only tooth showed post-operative sensitivity during 3 weeks for temperature changes and occlusal forces . Two failed Class II molar restorations in the resin composite-only group were observed during the first year , one cusp fracture and one resin composite fracture . An annual failure rate of 1.3 % was found for the resin composite only restorations and of 0 % in the bulk-filled restorations ( n.s . ) . Ten participants were estimated as having high caries risk and eleven showed active bruxing habits . SIGNIFICANCE The 4 mm bulk-fill technique with the flowable resin composite SDR showed highly clinical effectiveness , which was comparable during the 3-year follow-up with the 2 mm resin composite layering technique Background : Recently , manufacturers have introduced bulk-fill composite resins that reportedly can be placed in increments of 4 mm or greater . Objective : The purpose of this article was to report the results of 12 months prospect i ve r and omized clinical trial that evaluated the clinical performance of one high-viscosity bulk-fill composite resin in Class II cavities of posterior teeth . Material s and Methods : Thirty-four participants had at least two Class II cavities included the study . Class II cavities restored with either a Tetric EvoCeram bulk-fi fill or universal nano-hybrid resin composite ( Tetric EvoCeram ) . A total of 74 restorations ( 37 with each material ) on 34 patients were placed according to the manufacturers ' instructions by one calibrated operator . Results : Seventy restorations were evaluated after 12 months evaluation period . No postoperative sensitivity , anatomic form , retention , and secondary caries were observed after 6 and 12 months . Regarding the items color match , marginal discoloration , and marginal adaptation , the statistical analysis did not detect any statistical significance between two material s ( P > 0.05 ) . Conclusion : After 12 months of clinical service , all restorations evaluated for both material s were classified as ideal , receiving predominantly Alfa scores for all parameters analyzed . Clinical Relevance : This study presents that high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composites ( RCs ) perform just as well as nano-hybrid RCs with the 2 mm RC layering technique , therefore could be alternative to conventional nano-hybrid RCs OBJECTIVE The objective of this split-mouth r and omized controlled study was to compare the 2-year clinical performance of two restorative techniques and material s for posterior permanent carious teeth . METHOD AND MATERIAL S After signing informed consent , 30 patients aged between 7 and 16 received two Class 1 restorations on cavities on permanent first or second molar teeth performed with one of two systems : incrementally placed conventional posterior composite resin ( Herculite Ultra , Kerr ) , and sonic-resin placement system ( SonicFill , Kerr ) with single-component self-etch adhesive system ( Kerr ) according to the manufacturers ' directions . Two blinded observers evaluated the restorations at three times ( baseline , and after 1 and 2 years ) according to the US Public Health Service modified criteria . Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U-test were used to compare the clinical performance of the restorative systems . RESULTS The restorative systems showed similar clinical performance at 2 years . At the end of 2 years in both groups , one restoration 's marginal staining Alpha ratings decreased . In the same period , two restorations in the conventional group and one in the SonicFill group received Bravo ratings for color match and surface roughness scorings . CONCLUSION The sonic-resin placement system demonstrated similar results to incrementally placed conventional composite resin in terms of clinical success . Considering the advantages of providing up to 5 mm in a single layer , and the adjustability of the viscosity , bulk-fill composite restorations seem to be a good alternative to posterior Class 1 composite restorations . CLINICAL RELEVANCE This study suggests that a new dental material for bulk-fill technology exhibits similar clinical success to incrementally placed composite resin This study evaluated the performance of a low-shrinking resin composite compared with an amalgam for restoration of Class I and II cavities of moderate size in posterior teeth in a general practice setting . Fifty-two pairs of test and control restorations were placed in 49 patients . Clinical evaluations and assessment s of replica models were carried out at baseline , six months and one year . Patients recorded their level of satisfaction with the restorations by means of  visual analog scales . Apart from one control restoration that failed due to a fractured cusp , all of the restorations review ed at six months and one year were intact with no unacceptable scores for any of the evaluation criteria . It was concluded that the resin composite evaluated , when used in conjunction with the recommended adhesive system , may be an appropriate alternative to amalgam in the restoration of posterior teeth over one year in clinical service The purpose of this in vivo study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a posterior composite resin TP.H ( Caulk Dentisply ) in class I restorations in primary molars . A total of 30 children aged 5 to 8 years old with 49 class I dental lesions in primary molars participated in the study . The cavity preparations involved removal of carious lesion only and the enamel margins were beveled . The results showed after 30 months that , 82 % ( 32/39 ) of Alfa ratings and 18 % ( 7/39 ) of Bravo ratings . We concluded that the composite resin TP-H could be used in conservative restorations in primary molars , particularly in the late mixed dentition PURPOSE To evaluate the 3-year clinical durability of the flowable bulk-fill resin composite SDR in Class I and Class II restorations . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Thirty-eight pairs of Class I and 62 pairs of Class II restorations were placed in 44 male and 42 female patients ( mean age 52.4 years ) . Each patient received at least two extended Class I or Class II restorations that were as similar as possible . In all cavities , a one-step self-etching adhesive ( XenoV+ ) was applied . One of the cavities of each pair was r and omly assigned to receive the flowable bulk-fill resin composite SDR in increments up to 4 mm as needed to fill the cavity 2 mm short of the occlusal cavosurface . The occlusal part was completed with an ormocer-based nanohybrid resin composite ( Ceram X mono+ ) . In the other cavity , only the resin composite CeramX mono+ was placed in 2 mm increments . The restorations were evaluated using slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and then annually for 3 years . Caries risk and bruxing habits of the participants were estimated . RESULTS No post-operative sensitivity was reported . At the 3-year follow-up , 196 restorations - 74 Class I and 122 Class II - were evaluated . Seven restorations failed ( 3.6 % ) , 4 SDR-CeramX mono+ and 3 CeramX mono+ only restorations , all of which were Class II . The main reason for failure was tooth fracture , followed by resin composite fracture . The annual failure rate ( AFR ) for all restorations ( Class I and II ) was 1.2 % for the bulkfilled restorations and 1.0 % for the resin composite-only restorations ( p > 0.05 ) . For the Class II restorations , the AFR was 2.2 % and 1.6 % , respectively . CONCLUSION The 4-mm bulk-fill technique showed good clinical effectiveness during the 3-year follow-up PURPOSE The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical success potential of two nanocomposites placed in posterior teeth using an antibacterial adhesive system over 18 months . METHODS A total of 49 Class I and 47 Class II restorations were placed in the permanent teeth of thirty adult patients . The carious lesions were restored with Gr and io ( Voco ) or Filtek Supreme ( 3 M ESPE ) using a two-step self-etching antibacterial adhesive system Clearfil Protect Bond ( Kuraray ) . The restorations were finished with fine-grit diamond burs , Enhance polishing system , and Sof-Lex finishing brushes . The restorations were evaluated at baseline , 6 , 12 , and 18 months after placement using modified Ryge criteria for color stability , marginal discoloration , marginal adaptation , caries formation , anatomic form , postoperative sensitivity , surface roughness , and retention . RESULTS The changes in the parameters were assessed using the Cochran Q test and the McNemar test at a significance level of p < 0.05 . All restorations were classified as clinical ly satisfactory after 18 months . Statistical analysis demonstrated differences only in superficial roughness , with Gr and io exhibiting more surface roughness than Filtek Supreme ( p < 0.05 ) . CONCLUSION Posterior restorations built up with the novel nanocomposites using an antibacterial self-etching system showed satisfactory results at the 18-month recall appointment relative to all criteria except the surface texture in the case of Gr and io . Further evaluations are necessary for a more in-depth analysis Two composite resins were evaluated for clinical acceptability as restorative material s in Class I and II cavities over a 2-year-period . In addition , dispersed phase alloy was evaluated for comparison . All restorations were assessed for anatomical form , marginal integrity and marginal leakage using modified United States Public Health Service ( USPHS ) criteria . At the 2-year recall , 96 % of the composites and 100 % of the amalgams were rated ' alpha ' or ' bravo ' , using the parameters of assessment defined in this study . However , a significant number of shifts from the baseline , within the level of acceptability , had occurred . The two composites showed the greatest number of shifts for anatomical form and marginal leakage , while there were no differences between the composites and the amalgam for shifts in marginal integrity . Although a very high level of acceptability was determined for all of the material s , the frequency of rating change within categories for the composites was a cause of concern with regard to their long-term clinical use This r and omized study evaluated a flowable resin composite bulk-fill technique in posterior restorations and compared it intraindividually with a conventional 2-mm resin composite layering technique over a 6-yr follow-up period . Thirty-eight pairs of Class II restorations and 15 pairs of Class I restorations were placed in 38 adults . In all cavities a single-step self-etch adhesive ( Xeno V ) was applied . In the first cavity of each pair , the flowable resin composite ( SDR ) was placed , in bulk increments of up to 4 mm . The occlusal part was completed with a layer of nanohybrid resin composite ( Ceram X mono ) . In the second cavity of each pair , the hybrid resin composite was placed in 2-mm increments . The restorations were evaluated using slightly modified US Public Health Service ( USPHS ) criteria at baseline and then annually for a time period of 6 yr . After 6 yr , 72 Class II restorations and 26 Class I restorations could be evaluated . Six failed Class II molar restorations , three in each group , were observed , result ing in a success rate of 93.9 % for all restorations and an annual failure rate ( AFR ) of 1.0 % for both groups . The AFR for Class II and Class I restorations in both groups was 1.4 % and 0 % , respectively . The main reason for failure was resin composite fracture A  posterior composite resin restorative material  was evaluated over a 3-year period by means of a controlled clinical trial . A total of 52 composite resin restorations and 52 amalgam alloy restorations were included in this trial , and were examined with regard to marginal integrity , surface texture , anatomical form and proximal contact with adjacent teeth . There were no significant differences in clinical performance between test and control material s , which both gave good service over the period of evaluation . Only five restorations ( one of amalgam and four of composite resin )  failed during the trial . Plastic replica dies were used to support the clinical examinations of the restorations , and such dies were found to be helpful Objective This study evaluated the 56-month clinical performance of Class I and II resin composite restorations .  Filtek P60 was compared with Filtek Z250 , which are both indicated for posterior restorations but differ in terms of h and ling characteristics . The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference in the clinical performance of the two resin composites in posterior teeth . Material and Methods Thirty-three patients were treated by the same operator , who prepared 48 Class I and 42 Class II cavities , which were restored with Single Bond/Filtek Z250 or Single Bond/Filtek P60 restorative systems .  Restorations were evaluated by two independent examiners at baseline and after 56 months , using the modified USPHS criteria . Data were analyzed statistically using Chi-square and Fisher 's Exact tests ( a=0.05 ) . Results After 56 months , 25 patients ( 31 Class I and 36 Class II ) were analyzed . A 3 % failure rate occurred due to secondary caries and excessive loss of anatomic form for P60 . For both restorative systems , there were no significant differences in secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity . However , significant changes were observed with respect to anatomic form , marginal discoloration , and marginal adaptation . Significant decreases in surface texture were observed exclusively for the Z250 restorations . Conclusions Both restorative systems can be used for posterior restorations and can be expected to perform well in the oral environment AIM The aim of this study was to assess the clinical performance of two adhesive restorative systems ( Single Bond/Filtek P-60 and Single Bond/Filtek Z-250 ) in posterior teeth using a modified United States Public Health Service ( USPHS ) system . METHODS AND MATERIAL S A total of 70 restorations were placed in molars and premolars in 30 patients ( 14 females and 16 males ; 18 - 40 years ) by one operator . All restorations were directly evaluated by two examiners at baseline , six months , and 12 months using the following modified USPHS rating criteria : marginal integrity , marginal discoloration , surface texture , contour , postoperative sensitivity , and recurrent caries . RESULTS At six and 12 months all restorations were available for evaluation of marginal discoloration , surface texture , contour , postoperative sensitivity , and recurrent caries that remained with 100 % Alpha-ratings at recalls for both restorative systems . Marginal integrity for P-60 was scored as 94.3 % and 91.4 % Alpha at six and 12 months , respectively , and rates for Z-250 were 100 % and 97.1 % Alpha at six and 12 months , respectively . Statistical analysis was completed with Fisher 's exact and McNemar Chi-square tests at a significance level of 5 % ( P<0.05 ) . CONCLUSION All restorations were clinical ly satisfactory and no significant differences were found among them . CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Posterior resin composite restorations placed under appropriate conditions provide a satisfactory clinical performance A study was conducted to determine whether the wear resistance of a posterior composite could be improved by maximizing filler particle-to-particle contacts . This was expected to reduce stress concentrations on the resin matrix and thus reduce occlusal wear . A self-curing quartz-filled composite with this design , P-10 , was used to restore 90 Class I and II cavity preparations in adult teeth . Restorations were recalled after baseline at six months , one year , two years , and three years to measure wear by direct and indirect evaluation methods . There was no apparent advantage for this material compared with other previously evaluated posterior composites . The average cumulative wear for P-10 after three years was 145 microns . In addition , the restorations were evaluated for color-matching , interfacial staining , secondary caries , marginal adaptation , surface texture , and postoperative sensitivity . This material was not significantly different in those ways from other posterior composite products except in terms of more rapid color change , because it is self-cured OBJECTIVE The aim of this investigation was to evaluate the clinical performance of a new compomer restorative system , Dyract AP , placed in combination with Non-Rinse Conditioner and Prime & Bond NT in permanent posterior teeth . METHOD AND MATERIAL S Fifty Class II and 41 Class I restorations were placed in 39 patients by 1 dentist . The restorations were evaluated directly , with modified US Public Health Service criteria , and indirectly , with color slides and polyvinyl siloxane impressions , at baseline and 6 months and 1 year after placement . Preoperative and 1-year postoperative bitewing radiographs were also taken . RESULTS All 82 restorations available for 1-year evaluation were in situ . No postoperative sensitivity or pulpal problems were reported . Four Class II restorations ( 4.9 % ) failed because of partial fracture or recurrent caries . The percentages of Alfa score for each criterion were color match , 95.1 % ; marginal discoloration , 57.3 % ; marginal integrity , 35.4 % ; anatomic form , 98.8 % ; and surface texture , 91.5 % . The average wear rate of Dyract AP was low ( 18.5 + /- 11.7 microns at 6 months and 35.7 + /- 13.6 microns at 12 months ) . CONCLUSION The excellent h and ling characteristics , the good clinical performance , and the improved wear resistance suggest that this compomer will provide reliable direct tooth-colored restorations in stress-bearing areas BACKGROUND The authors evaluated clinical performances of a packable and a conventional hybrid resin-based composite used with a self-etch adhesive system . METHODS Three dentists placed 105 posterior restorations in 65 adults . They placed a packable ( SureFil , Dentsply DeTrey GmbH , Konstanz , Germany ) and a conventional ( Spectrum , Dentsply DeTrey GmbH ) resin-based composite using a self-etch resin adhesive system . The authors evaluated the restorations using Ryge modified criteria , photographs and die stone replicas . RESULTS After 3.5 years , six large SureFil and two Spectrum restorations had failed from bulk fracture and secondary caries , result ing in cumulative survival rates of 81.3 and 92.0 percent , respectively . Failed  SureFil restorations generally were larger than the remaining intact restorations . Other ratings were satisfactory , with no significant differences between the two material s for any restoration parameter . Alfa ratings for both material s were approximately 80 percent or greater for marginal discoloration , anatomical form , surface texture and surface staining . Lower percentages of restorations were rated Alfa for color match , marginal integrity and gingival health . No postoperative sensitivity was reported . Net mean occlusal wear ( + /- st and ard deviation ) was 28.9 ( + /- 32.9 ) micrometers for SureFil and 33.8 ( + /- 29.6 ) microm for Spectrum restorations ; the difference was not statistically significant . CONCLUSIONS When used with a self-etch adhesive , the 3.5-year clinical performances of both composites were similar and satisfactory for the restoration of Class I and moderate-sized Class II cavities . Clinical Implication s. The two composites placed in this study have an increased risk of bulk fracture when placed in large intracoronal Class II molar preparations This r and omized clinical trial sought to evaluate the performance of two packable composites over a period of 36 months . A total of 39 Class I and II restorations were placed in the permanent teeth of 20 patients . Using United States Public Health Services criteria , two investigators evaluated the restorations immediately after placement and again after 12 and 36 months , examining color match , marginal discoloration , marginal integrity , recurrent caries , proximal contact , anatomical shape , surface texture , and postoperative sensitivity . It was concluded that the packable composites evaluated showed satisfactory clinical performance after three years
Conclusions The present systematic review and meta- analysis indicate similar clinical performances of bulk-fill and conventional resin composites over a follow-up period of 12 to 72 months .
Clinical significance Based on the results of this study , the bulk-fill resin composites could be an alternative for direct restorations in posterior teeth .
Objectives The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the clinical performance of bulk-fill resin composites with conventional resin composites used for direct restorations of posterior teeth .
The research question was “ Do bulk-fill resin composites have a clinical performance comparable to conventional resin composites in posterior restorations ? ”