One-year results of a novel self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative and a conventional bulk-fill composite in class II cavities-a randomized clinical split-mouth study.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES\nIn the context of the phase-down of amalgam, development of easily applicable, permanent restorative materials is of high clinical interest. Aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a novel, tooth-colored, self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative (SABF, 3M Oral Care) and a conventional bulk-fill composite (Filtek One, 3M Oral Care; FOBF) for restoring class II cavities. The null-hypothesis tested was that both materials perform similar regarding clinical performance.\n\n\nMATERIALS AND METHODS\nIn this randomized split-mouth study, 30 patients received one SABF and one FOBF restoration each. Scotchbond Universal (3M Oral Care) was used as adhesive for FOBF (self-etch mode), while SABF was applied directly without adhesive. Restorations were evaluated by two blinded examiners at baseline, 6\xa0months and 12\xa0months employing FDI criteria. Non-parametric statistical analyses and χ2-tests (α\u2009=\u20090.05) were applied.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThirty patients (60 restorations) were available for the 6- and 12-month recalls exhibiting 100% restoration survival. All restorations revealed clinically acceptable FDI scores at all time points and for all criteria. Only regarding esthetic properties, FOBF performed significantly better than SABF regarding surface lustre (A1) and color match and translucency (A3) at all time points and marginal staining (A2b) at 12\xa0months.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nThe null-hypothesis could not be rejected. Both materials performed similarly regarding clinical performance within the first year of clinical service. SABF exhibited slightly inferior, but clinically fully acceptable esthetic properties as compared to FOBF.\n\n\nCLINICAL RELEVANCE\nWithin the limitations of this study, the self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative showed promising results and may be recommended for clinical use.