Two-year clinical comparison of a microfilled and a hybrid resin-based composite in non-carious Class V lesions

The purpose of this double-blind clinical trial was to compare the retention rate in noncarious Class V lesions of two resin-based composite restorative materials with contrasting stiffness. Isolation with retraction cord, pressed paper triangles, and cotton rolls was used to closely mimic the procedures generally used in a practice setting. Thirty pairs of restorations were placed, one using Silux Plus and one using Z100. The assignment of material was randomized, and the subjects were unaware of the material used. All restorations were placed with a fourth-generation adhesive liner, Scotchbond Multi-Purpose. Evaluations were performed at baseline, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months by two independent examiners using criteria developed by Cvar and Ryge in a forced consensus model. Examiners were unaware of the restoration's group identity. No difference between the retention rates for the two groups was found after 24 months, bringing into question the role that a material's stiffness plays in determining retention in a noncarious Class V lesion.