Clinical performance of two ion‐releasing bulk‐fill composites in class I and class II restorations: A two‐year evaluation

• Published in: Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry 2024-05, Vol.36 (5), p.723-736
• Main Authors: Albelasy, Eman H., Hamama, Hamdi H., Chew, Hooi Pin, Montasser, Marmar, Mahmoud, Salah H.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: bulk‐fill; Cavities; Composite materials; Composite Resins; Dental Caries; Dental Restoration, Permanent - methods; Humans; ion‐releasing; randomized clinical trial; self‐adhesive; Statistical analysis
• ISSN: 1496-4155; 1708-8240
• DOI: 10.1111/jerd.13193

Objectives This randomized clinical trial evaluated and compared the 2‐year clinical performance of two ion‐releasing bulk‐fill composites (Cention N and Surefil One) with that of a conventional bulk‐fill resin composite (Powerfil) in Class I and II cavities. Methods Thirty‐two patients, each with 3 Class I and/or Class II cavities under occlusion, were enrolled in this trial. A total of 96 restorations were placed, 32 for each material, as follows: a self‐adhesive composite; Surefil‐one, alkasite; Cention N, and a bulk‐fill resin composite; Powerfil. The restorations were placed by a single operator. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline (1‐week), 6‐months, 1‐year, and 2‐years by two independent examiners using the FDI criteria. Intergroup and intragroup comparisons were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis and Friedman Tests. Multiple comparisons between groups were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney and Wilcoxon‐rank tests. The level of significance was set at α = 0.05. Results Twenty‐seven patients with a total of 81 restorations were evaluated at the end of the 2‐years with 84.35% recall rates. Clinical success rates were 100%, 100%, and 96.3% for Powerfil, Surefil‐one, and Cention N, respectively. Cention N showed a statistically significant (p