One-year clinical results of restorations using a novel self-adhesive resin-based bulk-fill restorative

Applications of smart materials in minimally invasive dentistry - some research and clinical perspectives

OBJECTIVES

Dental caries is one of the most prevalent bacteria-induced non-communicable diseases globally. It is known to be the top oral health burden in both developing and developed nations. There is substantial literature on the disease process and there is still debate on the extent of caries removal needed and the adequacy of the materials available to restore the lost tooth structure. The current review discusses the disease process together with the contemporary management of the carious lesion and also presents substantial evidence on novel materials and techniques that make minimally invasive dentistry predictable.

METHODS

The written work presented shows the most relevant literature for the management of dental caries focusing on novel materials used in minimally invasive dentistry.

RESULTS

There is still much to learn about specific antimicrobial and caries prevention mechanisms of novel materials. Materials that respond to a single or a few stimuli remain "weakly intelligent" in the face of the complex microenvironment in the oral cavity. Engineered systems that combine artificial intelligence and chemical engineering, are expected to possess higher intelligence, self-healing capabilities as well as environmental adaptability, and may be future promising research directions.

SIGNIFICANCE

The targeted approach in managing dental caries will hopefully have a better clinical outcome. The strategies discussed are alternatives to the contemporary approach and will improve the clinical management.

Comparative clinical evaluation between self-adhesive and conventional bulk-fill composites in class II cavities: A 1-year randomized controlled clinical study

OBJECTIVE

This randomized controlled clinical trial compared the clinical efficacy of self-adhesive bulk-fill Surefil One with a traditional bulk-fill composite in class II restorations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-four direct class II composite restorations were categorized into two groups. Group I, control group (n = 32): cavities were restored by Filtek One bulk-fill composite with Scotchbond Universal (SBU) adhesive in self-etch mode, Group II, test group (n = 32): cavities were restored by Surefil One self-adhesive bulk-fill composite. The study involved a follow-up period of 1 year, during which restorations were assessed at baseline (BL), 6 months, and 12 months using Federation Dentaire Internationale (FDI) criteria. Data analysis was performed using nonparametric tests. A comparison of restoration characteristics was performed utilizing the chi-square test (X2). The significance level was set at 0.05.

RESULTS

Filtek One and Surefil One bulk-fill composites revealed clinically acceptable FDI scores over 12-month recalls. Thirty-two patients (64 restorations) were available for all follow-up visits; 100% of the restorations survived. For esthetic properties, Filtek One was far better than Surefil One at all time points. However, in terms of functional and biological properties, both restorations demonstrated comparable performances.

CONCLUSIONS

Filtek One bulk-fill restorations were superior in terms of surface luster, surface staining, color match, and translucency, but Surefil One restorations performed well and were similar to Filtek One restorations; however, additional advancements and research are needed to obtain better esthetics. Furthermore, longitudinal studies with extended follow-up periods are needed to assess the clinical potential of both materials.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Both Filtek One and Surefil One met the FDI criteria, with Filtek One demonstrating superior esthetic and functional qualities and similar performance regarding biological criteria. Both innovative restorative materials show potential for clinical use. Trial registered on ClinicalTrials.gov under registration number; NCT06120868:07/11/2023.

A Historical Perspective on Dental Composite Restorative Materials

This review article will discuss the origin of resin-based dental composite materials and their adoption as potentially useful adjuncts to the primary material used by most dentists for direct restorations. The evolution of the materials, largely driven by the industry's response to the needs of dentists, has produced materials that are esthetic, strong, and versatile enough to be used in most areas of the oral cavity to replace or restore missing tooth structures. Significant advancements, such as the transition from chemical to light-curing materials, refinements in reinforcing particles to produce optimum polishing and wear resistance, formulating pastes with altered viscosities to create highly flowable and highly stiff materials, and creating materials with enhanced depth of cure to facilitate placement, will be highlighted. Future advancements will likely reflect the movement away from simply being a biocompatible material to one that is designed to produce some type of beneficial effect upon interaction within the oral environment. These new materials have been called "bioactive" by virtue of their potential effects on bacterial biofilms and their ability to promote mineralization of adjacent tooth structures.

Assessment of the Micro-Tensile Bond Strength of a Novel Bioactive Dental Restorative Material (Surefil One)

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to assess the micro-tensile bond strength and the mode of failure of a bioactive hybrid self-adhesive composite (Surefil one) under various dentin conditions.

METHODS

Thirty-two extracted human molar teeth were used to test the micro-tensile bond strength of Surefil one under different dentine conditions (no treatment, 37% phosphoric acid etching, and universal adhesive) in comparison with a resin-modified glass ionomer (RIVA). All restorations were light cure-bonded onto flat dentine and then sectioned into beams. Then, fractured specimens were observed under a light microscope to evaluate the mode of failure.

RESULTS

The Surefil one no-treatment group (NTG) exhibited the highest micro-tensile bond strength. Furthermore, there was no statistically significant difference observed between the Surefil one adhesive group (EAG) and the Surefil one acid etch group (EG). However, compared to other groups, the resin-modified glass ionomer (RIVA) produced the lowest results, which are statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Surefil one offers superior bond strength values when compared to resin-modified glass ionomers. Furthermore, Surefil one requires no dentin condition and has more straightforward clinical steps.

Dentin adhesion of bulk-fill composites and universal adhesives in class I-cavities with high C-factor

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the dentin adhesion of bulk-fill composites in high C-factor class I-cavities before and after thermocycling to a control group using incremental layering technique.

METHODS

A standardized class I-cavity was prepared into 195 human molars, then different universal adhesives were applied either in self-etch or etch & rinse mode, and the cavity was filled according to each materials application protocol. The material combinations used were a conventional layered composite as control, the respective bulk-fill product, two other bulk-fill composites made by different manufacturers, with one of them being tested using two different polymerization times. Furthermore, one thermoviscous bulk-fill composite and one self-adhesive restorative were examined of which the latter can only be applied in self-etch mode. In each group the dentin adhesion to the cavity bottom was measured using microtensile bond strength test initially (24 h water storage) and after thermocycling. All results were statistically analyzed using STATA 17.0.

RESULTS

The statistical analysis showed significant differences between the control and the experimental groups (p < 0.001). The highest mean bond strength before (14.8 ± 10.7 MPa) and after aging (14.2 ± 11.5 MPa) was measured for the etch & rinse-control group. Among the bulk-fill groups, the etch & rinse technique consistently showed higher bond strengths. Bond strength of groups with shortened polymerization did not exceed 2.1 MPa. The bond strength of the self-adhesive restoration material was low before and after thermocycling (2.7 MPa/ 0.0 MPa). Groups with low bond strength values showed a high number of pre-testing-failures.

CONCLUSIONS

Bulk-fill materials used in high C-factor class I-cavities showed lower bond strength during self-etch application. The same applies for a shortened polymerization regime, which cannot be recommended for high C-factor cavities.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Today, a large variety of materials and application techniques can be used when placing an adhesive restoration. Whether new instead of established procedures should be applied in high C-factor cavities has to be critically assessed, as they are a demanding scenario for adhesive restorations.

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

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the 5-year clinical performance of a glass hybrid restorative system and a nano-hybrid resin composite in moderate to large two-surface class II cavities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was carried out by dental schools in Zagreb, Croatia; Izmir, Turkey; Belgrade, Serbia; and Milan, Italy. A total of 180 patients requiring two class-II two-surface restorations in the molars of the same jaw were recruited. The teeth were randomly restored with either a nano-hybrid resin composite (Tetric EvoCeram, Ivoclar Vivadent) or a glass-hybrid material (EQUIA Forte, GC). During the 5-year follow-up, two calibrated evaluators at each centre scored the restorations annually using the FDI-2 scoring system. The survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using non-parametric matched pair tests (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between the overall survival and success rates of the two types of restorations (p>0.05). The success rates (FDI-2 scores 1-3) for EQUIA Forte were 81.9% (average annual failure rate: 3.9%) and 90.7% for Tetric EvoCeram (average annual failure rate: 1.9%). The survival rates (FDI-2 scores 1-4) for EQUIA Forte and Tetric EvoCeram were 94.5% and 94.4%, respectively, with an average annual failure rate of 1.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of success and survival rates, both the glass-hybrid restorative system and the nano-hybrid resin composite have been shown to perform satisfactorily.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The results of this study indicate that EQUIA Forte can be one of the therapeutic options for moderate to large two-surface class II restorations of posterior teeth.

Color Match of a Universal-shade Composite Resin for Restoration of Non-carious Cervical Lesions: An Equivalence Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

The objective of this double-blind, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the color match of a single-shade composite resin Admira Fusion X-tra in comparison with a multi-shade composite resin Admira Fusion in non-carious cervical lesion restorations (NCCLs).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

One hundred and twenty restorations were performed on NCCLs with two restorative materials (n=60). After prophylaxis, the teeth were isolated with a rubber dam, and one universal adhesive was applied in the selective enamel etching strategy. For both groups, the restorations were inserted incrementally and light-cured. The values of the coordinates L*, a*, and b* in the cervical third before vs after the restorations and cervical vs middle third after the restorations were evaluated using a digital spectrophotometer after the coordinate values were used to calculate the CIEDE (ΔE00). The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 7 days of clinical performance according to the FDI criteria. Statistical analysis was performed using the Chi-square test for all parameters. Color change was analyzed by Student t-test for paired samples (α=0.05).

RESULTS

All restorations were evaluated after 7 days. Regarding the color measurement, no significant difference was observed when Admira Fusion was compared to Admira Fusion X-tra for any of the comparisons performed (p>0.05). However, the values of ΔE00 in the cervical third before vs after the restorations were higher when compared with ΔE00 observed when the cervical vs middle third after restorations were compared. All restorations received the score "clinically very good" after 7 days for all outcomes, including the subjective color match, when evaluated for FDI criterion.

CONCLUSIONS

The single-shade composite resin used achieves the same color match when compared to a multi-shade composite resin after 7 days in NCCLs.

5-year clinical performance of posterior bulk-filled resin composite restorations: A double-blind randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this double-blind, and randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the 5-year clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations placed with the incremental filling technique [IF] or the bulk-fill technique [BF]. Two different adhesive systems were used: etch-&-rinse (ER) or self-etch (SE).

METHODS

Posterior dental teeth of 72 participants (n = 236), with a cavity depth of at least 3 mm, were randomly divided into four groups. Restorations were applied with either Tetric N-Bond or Tetric N-Bond SE. The composite resin Tetric N-Ceram Bulk-Fill was placed either with IF or BF. Restorations were evaluated using FDI criteria at baseline and after 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years. Statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon Signed rank test (a=0.05).

RESULTS

Two hundred and four restorations were evaluated after 5 years. Eleven restorations were considered 'failed', ten due to fracture (4 IF and 6 BF) and one due to secondary caries (IF). The annual failure rate was 1.2% for BF and 1% for IF (p = 0.35). When comparing BF and IF, no significant differences were found for any of the parameters evaluated (p > 0.05). Regarding the adhesive systems, 44 and 51 restorations showed minor problems in terms of marginal adaptation and staining, with significantly more marginal discoloration when the self-etch adhesive was used (p = 0.002).

SIGNIFICANCE

The bulk-fill restorative technique showed good clinical behavior compared to the incremental filling technique, especially when using an etch-&-rinse adhesive, after 5 years of clinical evaluation.

Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of Three Types of Adhesive Materials Used in the Restoration of Permanent Molars after Treatment with Silver Diamine Fluoride: An In Vitro Study

BACKGROUND

Permanent blackish discoloration of the tooth structure post application of silver diamine fluoride (SDF) is one of its drawbacks. Several restorative materials have been used to restore and mask the blackish discoloration of SDF-treated teeth. Recently, a new self-adhesive material has been introduced and is marketed as an all-in-one etchant, adhesive, and restorative material indicated for use in all clinical situations. This study aimed to assess the shear bond strength of the new self-adhesive restorative material and compare it with adhesive restorative materials- resin-based composite and resin-modified glass ionomer cement to dentin of extracted permanent teeth treated with 38% SDF.

METHODS

Thirty-nine caries-free extracted teeth (n = 39) were grouped into three groups. Following 38% SDF application, the specimens were loaded with resin-based (Group I), the new self-adhesive restorative material (SDR) Surefil (Group II), and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) (Group III). Shear bond strength (SBS) was calculated, and failure modes were evaluated using the universal testing device (3) Results: The composite showed the highest bond strength, followed by Group II while Group III had the lowest bond strength of all tested materials. Regarding failure type, the composite showed 100% adhesive failure, while Group III and Group II showed mostly adhesive failure with some combination. (4) Conclusions: RBC had a significantly stronger SBS to demineralized dentin surfaces of permanent molar teeth treated with SDF when compared to SDR Surefil and RMGIC.

Postoperative sensitivity in posterior restorations restored with self-adhesive and conventional bulk-fill resin composites: A randomized clinical split-mouth trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the postoperative sensitivity (POS) of a self-adhesive bulk-fill resin composite with that of a conventional bulk-fill resin composite in posterior restorations.

METHODS

Class I and II (n = 166) cavities of at least 3 mm depth, in 83 participants were restored by: (TEST: Surefil one™ Self-Adhesive bulk-fill (n = 83); and CONTROL: Filtek™ Bulk-Fill posterior composites (n = 83). The presence and intensity of POS associated with the restorations was evaluated at 24 h, 1 week and 1 month intervals using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Comparisons of POS presence between the two treatment groups were made using the Chi-square and Fisher exact tests, while Mann-Whitney and Friedman tests were used to compare the intensity of POS (α=0.05).

RESULTS

Forty-two of participants (25.3%; 95% CI 19.3 to 32.4) reported presence of POS after 24 h and none of the participants reported POS after 1 month. The presence of POS was not significantly affected by the restorative material after 24 h, 1 week and 1 month (p>0.05). After 1 week, the participants in the Surefil one™ group reported significantly less intensity of POS than the participants in the Filtek™ Bulk-Fill group (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of Surefil one™ self-adhesive resin composite did not significantly increase the presence of POS compared to the use of the conventional bulk-fill resin composite. However, the intensity of POS was significantly less in the Surefil one ™ group after one week.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The use of a self-adhesive bulk-fill resin composite in posterior restorations did not increase the presence of POS more than the use of a conventional bulk-fill resin composite. However, it decreased the intensity of POS after one week. This clinical trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov; the registration number is NCT05567263.

Various ways of pre-heating a bulk-fill thermoviscous composite in restoration in non-carious cervical lesions: 12-month randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study is to evaluate through a randomized clinical trial the best method to preheat a composite resin, if using a Caps dispenser device associated with Caps Warmer (CD) or with a VisCalor Caps dispenser/warmer (VD) for restorations in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One hundred and twenty restorations were distributed to two groups (n = 60) according to the pre-heating way of thermoviscous bulk-fill composite resin. For the CD group, pre-heating was carried at 68 °C using a heating bench for 3 min. For the VD group, pre-heating was performed at 68 °C using a heating gun for 30 s. After that, pre-heated bulk-fill composites were directly inserted in the NCCLs. The total working time was recorded. The restorations were evaluated after 6 and 12 months of clinical performance according to the FDI criteria. Statistical analysis was performed using the Student's t test for unpaired samples for working time, and the Chi-square test for restoration clinical performance (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Working time was shorter for VD with a statistically significant difference compared to CD (p = 0.01). Few restorations were lost or fractured after 12 months of clinical evaluation (p > 0.05). The retention rates were 96.7% (CI 95 %: 88.6-99.1%) for CD and 98.3% (CI 95 %: 91.1-99.7%) for VD. The other FDI parameters were considered clinically acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

The different pre-heating ways did not influence the clinical performance of thermoviscous bulk-fill composite restorations in NCCLs after 12 months.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Regardless of the bulk-fill thermoviscous composite resin pre-heating ways, the restorations are clinically acceptable after 12 months.

Minimally invasive selective caries removal: a clinical guide

An evolving understanding of the carious process, along with new research in adhesive restorative materials, has led to a more conservative, minimally invasive and biologically-based approach to managing dental carious lesions. The growing volume of literature has also demonstrated prognostic success in the selective caries excavation technique, subsequently preventing excessive tooth structure removal and injury to the dentine-pulp complex, which maintains pulp vitality and improves the long-term prognosis of the tooth. However, at present, there remains a limited volume of high-quality evidence to support selective caries removal, which subsequently could partly explain some resistance to its use in clinical practice. This clinical technique guide aims to demonstrate the management of carious lesions of moderate-to-deep depth in permanent teeth based on current minimally invasive dental literature.

Cytotoxic Evaluation of the New Composite Resin through an Artificial Pulp Chamber

The aim of this study was to analyse the cytocompatibility of Surefil One (SuO) with respect to the release of monomers from the material. The following reference materials were chosen: SDR Flow Plus (SDR, Dentsply Sirona, Konstanz, Germany), One Q Bond (Q, Dentalica, Milan, Italy), and Ketac (K, 3M-ESPE, USA). Fifteen dentin discs (2 mm thickness and diameter) were obtained from 15 third molars and were used in this study. After dentin disc permeability measurement, murine fibroblasts were grown, and the pulp surface of the dentinal disc was placed in direct contact with the cells immersed in DMEM. The experimental materials were positioned on the occlusal side of each dentinal disc until a uniform thickness of 2 mm was obtained. Then, the discs were inserted into an artificial pulp chamber for 24 hours to assess the cytocompatibility. Afterwards, the moles of monomers leached from the specimens in DMEM were determined using HPLC. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA (p < 0.05). Under the experimental conditions, the toxic effect induced by all tested materials was slight or absent. Diurethane dimethacrylate and acrylic acid were not found in the culture media. It is concluded that all materials have good cytocompatibility consistent with the nondeterminability of the monomers released after polymerization.

Radiopaque Crystalline, Non-Crystalline and Nanostructured Bioceramics

Radiopacity is sometimes an essential characteristic of biomaterials that can help clinicians perform follow-ups during pre- and post-interventional radiological imaging. Due to their chemical composition and structure, most bioceramics are inherently radiopaque but can still be doped/mixed with radiopacifiers to increase their visualization during or after medical procedures. The radiopacifiers are frequently heavy elements of the periodic table, such as Bi, Zr, Sr, Ba, Ta, Zn, Y, etc., or their relevant compounds that can confer enhanced radiopacity. Radiopaque bioceramics are also intriguing additives for biopolymers and hybrids, which are extensively researched and developed nowadays for various biomedical setups. The present work aims to provide an overview of radiopaque bioceramics, specifically crystalline, non-crystalline (glassy), and nanostructured bioceramics designed for applications in orthopedics, dentistry, and cancer therapy. Furthermore, the modification of the chemical, physical, and biological properties of parent ceramics/biopolymers due to the addition of radiopacifiers is critically discussed. We also point out future research lacunas in this exciting field that bioceramists can explore further.

Alternatives to amalgam: Is pretreatment necessary for effective bonding to dentin?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine whether pretreatment of the dentin surface is beneficial or not by analysis of the bond strengths of four self-adhesive restoratives and four restoration materials where pretreatment of dentin was necessary.

METHODS

Bovine incisors (n = 160) were ground flat on the labial surfaces to expose dentin using a grinder and silicon carbide (SiC) abrasive papers under running water. Between preparation and bonding procedures, the crowns were stored in Chloramine-T solution at 4 °C. Eight different restorative materials were studied: Activa BioActive (ABA), Cention Forte (CNF), Ceram.x Spectra ST (CXS), Riva self-cure (RSC), Equia Forte (EQF), Fuji II LC (FJI), Ketac Molar (KTM), Surefil one (SFO). Four materials required pretreatment of the dental hard tissue before placement, whereas the other four were self-adhesive (no pretreatment). The specimens were mounted vertically in plaster. A preload of 5 N was applied and the subsequent cross-head speed was 0.8 mm/min. Shear bond strengths (MPa) were calculated as the failure load divided by the bonding area. Failure modes were recorded as adhesive, cohesive or pretest. Data were statistically analyzed via ordinal regression for inference and Tukey's method to adjust for multiple comparisons. All computations were done using R version 4.1.2 (R Core Team 2021).

RESULTS

S_max (failure stress in MPa) of the combined groups with pretreatment were significantly higher than the self-adhesive materials. The highest frequency of pretest-failure was seen with FJI. Glass-ionomer cements without pretreatment were the only restoratives with pretest failures. Amongst materials without pretreatment, SFO had the highest bond strengths.

SIGNIFICANCE

The further reduction of the placement steps for materials used as an amalgam alternative, namely the omission of pretreatment of the dentin, results in these self-adhesive materials having lower bond strengths than materials that require pretreatment of the dentin.

Effect of Different Adhesive Strategies on the Microshear Bond Strength of Calcium-Silicate-Based Materials

Aim:

To evaluate the microshear bond strength (µSBS) of mineral trioxide aggregate and Biodentine to various resin-based materials using different adhesive strategies.

Materials and Methods:

Three resin-based materials—a self-adhering resin composite with or without acid etching (Vertise flow; Kerr, Orange, CA, USA), a conventional flowable composite with a total-etch adhesive (Filtek Ultimate Flowable; 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA), and a flowable resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) without any surface modification (Ionoseal; VOCO GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany)—and two calcium-silicate-based materials—Biodentine and BIOfactor mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)—were tested. A total of 100 cylindrical acrylic molds were prepared. Biodentine and BIOfactor MTA were prepared and placed into the central holes on the molds. Specimens were divided into two main groups according to materials and into five subgroups ( n = 10). µSBS were evaluated using a µSBS testing device. The failure modes were examined under a stereomicroscope with magnification. They were categorized as adhesive, cohesive, or mixed. Data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey test. The significance level was taken as α = 0.05.

Results:

It was observed that both calcium-silicate-based material type and resin-based material type influenced the µSBS significantly according to two-way ANOVA. Biodentine exhibited higher bond strength values than MTA. However, no statistically significant interaction was demonstrated between these factors ( P = .396). The µSBS values of intermediate materials to Biodentine and MTA were listed from the lowest to the highest as follows: RMGIC < Acid Etch + RMGIC < SARC (self-adhering resin composite) < FC (flowable composite) < Acid Etch + SARC.

Conclusion:

Self-adhering composites can be used on calcium-silicate-based materials in vital pulp treatments because of their mechanical properties. Acid-etching ensures high µSBS values. Although the µSBS of Biodentine were higher than MTA according to this study’s results, there was no statistically significant difference in µSBS of FC and acid-etched SARC to MTA.

Randomized clinical split-mouth study on a novel self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative vs. a conventional bulk-fill composite for restoration of class II cavities - results after three years

OBJECTIVES

This randomized prospective split-mouth study evaluated the clinical performance of a novel, tooth-colored, self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative (SABF, 3M) for restoration of class II cavities as compared to a conventional bulk-fill composite (Filtek One, 3M; FOBF) over 36 months. The null-hypothesis was that both materials perform equally regarding clinical success and performance according to the FDI clinical criteria and scoring system.

METHODS

30 patients received one SABF and one FOBF restoration each. For FOBF, Scotchbond Universal (3M) was used as adhesive (self-etch mode), whereas SABF was applied without adhesive. Two blinded examiners evaluated the restorations at baseline, 24 and 36 months using FDI criteria. Data were analyzed non-parametrically (χ²-tests; α=0.05).

RESULTS

29 patients were available for the 24- and 36-month examinations. Clinical success rate was 96.6% for both materials at 36-mo (one restoration failure due to secondary caries each). All other restorations revealed clinically acceptable FDI scores at all recalls. FOBF performed significantly better than SABF at all time points regarding surface lustre (p<0.001) and color match and translucency (p<0.001) and regarding marginal staining at 36-months (p=0.008). Marginal staining and marginal adaptation deteriorated significantly over time for both materials (both p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The null-hypothesis could only partially be rejected. Both materials performed similarly regarding clinical success and performance within 36 months of clinical service, but SABF exhibited significantly inferior, but clinically fully acceptable esthetic properties as compared to FOBF. Both restorative materials showed clinically fully acceptable results over 36 months of clinical service and thus may be recommended for clinical use.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The novel tooth-colored self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative exhibited clinically fully acceptable results over 36 months of clinical service, similarly to a conventional bulk-fill restorative used with a universal adhesive, but with slight shortcomings in esthetic properties. Therefore, both restorative materials may be recommended for clinical use.