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 evaluation of the posterior composite Quixfil in class I and II cavities: 4-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.
PURPOSE This longitudinal r and omized controlled clinical trial evaluated direct composite restorations for clinical acceptability as posterior restoratives in single- or multi-surface cavities and provides a survey of the 4-year results . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Three dentists placed 46 Quixfil ( Xeno III ) and 50 Tetric Ceram ( Syntac Classic ) composite restorations in stress-bearing Class I and II cavities in first or second molars ( 43 adult patients ) . Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and after 4 years by 2 other dentists using modified USPHS criteria . At the last recall period , 37 Quixfil and 46 Tetric Ceram restorations  were assessed . RESULTS A total of 89.2 % of Quixfil and 97.8 % of Tetric Ceram posterior composites were assessed to be clinical ly excellent or acceptable with predominating alfa scores . Up to the 4-year recall , four Quixfil restorations failed because of bulk fracture , partial tooth fracture ( 2x ) and postoperative symptoms . One Tetric Ceram restoration was lost due to problems with tooth integrity . No significant differences between the two composites could be detected at 4 years for any of the evaluated clinical criteria ( p > 0.05 ) . The comparison of restoration performance with time within both groups yielded a significant increase in marginal discoloration and decrease in marginal integrity for both material s. After 4 years , small restorations exhibited significantly less marginal discoloration than large restorations . CONCLUSION Clinical assessment of stress-bearing Quixfil and Tetric Ceram posterior composite restorations showed good clinical results with predominantly alfa scores for both material
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 ? ”