Clinical Evaluation of Flowable Composite Materials in Permanent Molars Small Class I Restorations: 3-Year Double Blind Clinical Study

• Published in: Materials 2021-07, Vol.14 (15), p.4283
• Main Authors: Dukić, Walter, Majić, Mia, Prica, Natalija, Oreški, Ivan
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adaptation; Adhesives; Composite materials; Criteria; Dentistry; Dentists; Double-blind studies; Medical prognosis; Patients; Public health; Teeth
• ISSN: 1996-1944; 1996-1944
• DOI: 10.3390/ma14154283

This study evaluated the 3-year clinical performance of four different flowable composite materials used in Small Class I restorations in permanent molars. This double-blinded, clinical study analyzed 229 Small Class I restorations/103 children at baseline, 12, 24, and 36 months with modified United States Public Health Services (USPHS) criteria. The tested flowable materials were Voco Grandio Flow + Voco Solobond M, Vivadent Tetric EvoFlow + Vivadent Excite, Dentsply X-Flow + Dentsply Prime&Bond NT, and 3M ESPE Filtek Supreme XT Flow + 3M ESPE Scotchbond Universal. The retention and marginal adaptation rates were highest for Grandio Flow and X Flow materials after 36 months, resulting in the highest score of clinical acceptability at 95.3% and 97.6%, respectively. The Tetric EvoFlow and Filtek Supreme XT Flow had the same retention rate after 36 months at 88.1%. Statistical significance was found in Grandio flow material in postoperative sensitivity criteria ( = 0.021). Tetric EvoFlow showed statistical differences in retention ( = 0.01), color match ( = 0.004), and marginal adaptation ( = 0.042). Filtek Supreme showed statistical differences in retention ( = 0.01) and marginal adaptation ( < 0.001). The flowable composite materials showed excellent clinical efficacy after 36 months of their clinical usage. There was no difference among the tested flowable composite materials quality in Small Class I restorations over time.