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 ? ”
Three-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial of the posterior composite QuiXfil in class I and II cavities
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 3-year results . 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 3 years by two other dentists using modified US Public Health Service criteria . At the last recall period , 40 QuiXfil and 46 Tetric Ceram restorations  were assessed . A total of 92.5 % of QuiXfil and 97.8 % of Tetric Ceram posterior composites were assessed to be clinical ly excellent or acceptable with predominating alpha scores . Up to the 3-year recall , three QuiXfil restorations failed because of bulk fracture , partial tooth fracture , and postoperative symptoms . One Tetric Ceram restoration was lost due to problems with tooth integrity . No significant differences between both composites could be detected at 3 years for all evaluated clinical criteria ( p > 0.05 ) . The comparison of restoration performance with time within both groups yielded a significant increase in marginal discoloration ( p = 0.007 ) and deterioration of marginal integrity ( p = 0.029 ) for QuiXfil and significant increase in marginal discoloration ( p = 0.009 ) for Tetric Ceram . However , both changes were mainly effects of scoring shifts from alpha to bravo . 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 ? ”