Conclusions The present systematic review and meta- analysis indicate similar clinical performances of bulk-fill and conventional resin composites over a follow-up period of 12 to 72 months .
Clinical significance Based on the results of this study , the bulk-fill resin composites could be an alternative for direct restorations in posterior teeth .
Objectives The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the clinical performance of bulk-fill resin composites with conventional resin composites used for direct restorations of posterior teeth .
The research question was “ Do bulk-fill resin composites have a clinical performance comparable to conventional resin composites in posterior restorations ? ”
Clinical performance of the posterior composite QuiXfil after 3, 6, and 18 months in Class 1 and 2 cavities.
OBJECTIVE This longitudinal r and omized controlled clinical trial evaluated direct composite restorations for clinical acceptability of posterior restoratives in single- or multisurface cavities and provided a preliminary survey of the 3- , 6- , and 18-month results . METHOD AND MATERIAL S Three clinicians placed 46 QuiXfil ( Xeno III ; Dentsply DeTrey ) and 50 Tetric Ceram ( Syntac Classic ; Vivadent ) composite restorations in stress-bearing Class 1 and 2 cavities in first or second molars ( 43 adult patients ) . Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and after 3 , 6 , and 18 months by 2 other clinicians using modified US Public Health Service criteria . At the final recall period , 45 QuiXfil and 49 Tetric Ceram restorations were assessed . RESULTS A total of 97.8 % of QuiXfil and 100 % of Tetric Ceram posterior composites were assessed to be clinical ly excellent or acceptable with predominating Alpha scores . At the 18-month recall , 1 QuiXfil restoration had failed because of bulk fracture . No significant differences between either composite could be detected at 18 months for all evaluated clinical criteria ( P > .05 ) . Small QuiXfil restorations exhibited significantly less marginal discoloration ( P = .003 ) and better restoration integrity ( P = .008 ) than large restorations . The comparison of restoration performance with time within both groups yielded a significant increase in marginal discoloration for QuiXfil ( P = .011 ) and significant deterioration for anatomic form at the marginal step for Tetric Ceram ( P = .011 ) . However , both changes were only effects of scoring shifts from Alpha to Bravo . CONCLUSION Clinical assessment of stress-bearing QuiXfil and Tetric Ceram posterior composite restorations exhibited for both material s good clinical results with predominating Alpha scores
Conclusions The present systematic review and meta- analysis indicate similar clinical performances of bulk-fill and conventional resin composites over a follow-up period of 12 to 72 months .
Clinical significance Based on the results of this study , the bulk-fill resin composites could be an alternative for direct restorations in posterior teeth .
Objectives The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the clinical performance of bulk-fill resin composites with conventional resin composites used for direct restorations of posterior teeth .
The research question was “ Do bulk-fill resin composites have a clinical performance comparable to conventional resin composites in posterior restorations ? ”