Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 26, 2026
Roughness Impact of Piezoelectric Dental Scaler on Two Distinct Flowable Composite Filling Materials
Published on: January 10, 2025
One-year clinical evaluation of different types of bulk-fill composites
Yusuf Bayraktar1, Ertuğrul Ercan1, Mehmet Mustafa Hamidi1
1Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentisty, Kırıkkale University, Kırıkkale, Turkey.
Aim:
In the present study, we evaluated the 1-year clinical performance of a conventional posterior composite resin and three bulk-fill composite resins.
Methods:
Fifty patients with four class II restorations under occlusion were enrolled in the present study. A total of 200 restorations were placed in the cavity, 50 for each material (Clearfil Photo Posterior, Filtek Bulk-Fill Flowable and Filtek P60, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk-Fill, and SonicFill). One operator placed the restorations in the cavity, and 1 week later the patients were called for baseline examination. Two calibrated examiners evaluated the restorations once every 3 months for 1 year, according to United States Public Health Service criteria. The data were analyzed using SPSS. Non-parametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U-test, and Friedman) were used for the analysis at a confidence level of 95%.
Results:
The 1-year recall rate was 86%. All restorations showed minor modifications after 1 year. However, no statistically-significant differences were detected between the materials' performance at baseline and after 1 year for all criteria (P > 0.05).
Conclusions:
The bulk-fill composite resin materials showed similar clinical performance when compared with a conventional posterior composite resin. Further evaluations are necessary for the long-term clinical performance of these materials.
