Comparison of the 2-year clinical performances of class II restorations using different restorative materials

ObjectiveThis prospective clinical study aimed to evaluate the two-year clinical performance of conventional composite, bulk-fill composite, and high-filler flowable composite in Class II cavities.Materials and methodsA total of 259 Class II restorations were performed in 110 patients, applying Clearfil Majesty Posterior (Clearfil) as the conventional composite, Filtek One Bulk Fill Restorative (Filtek) as the bulk-fill composite, and G-aenial Universal Injectable (G-aenial) as the high-fill flowable composite. G-Premio Bond, a universal adhesive system, was applied for all composite resin restorations. Restorations were evaluated using FDI criteria after 2 years. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Friedman tests.ResultsAt the end of two years, the group treated with Clearfil has showed a significantly higher surface gloss score compared to the G-aenial and Filtek groups. Additionally, it was seen that the marginal adaptation scores of the Clearfil group were similar to the Filtek group and significantly higher than the G-aenial group. In intra-group evaluations, the contact point scores of the Clearfil group showed a statistically significant increase compared to baseline and one-year follow-up assessments. The marginal adaptation scores of the Clearfil and Filtek groups also exhibited a statistically significant increase compared to baseline and one-year follow-up assessments.ConclusionsHigh-filler flowable composite and bulk-fill composite exhibited better clinical properties regarding surface gloss compared to conventional composite. It was observed that the marginal adaptation property of the conventional composite were similar to the bulk-fill composite and lower than the high- filler flowable composite.Clinical relevance: The composite resins tested showed similar results in most of the scores evaluated.