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 ? ”
Resin composite class I restorations: a 54-month randomized clinical trial.
The objective of this longitudinal clinical r and omized trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofilled and a nanohybrid resin composite in Class I occlusal restorations of posterior teeth over the course of 54 months . Forty-one adolescents participated in the study . The teeth were restored with Adper Single Bond 2 ( 3 M ESPE ) and nanofilled ( Filtek Z350 , 3 M ESPE ) , nanohybrid ( Esthet-X , Dentsply ) and microhybrid Filtek Z250 ( 3 M ESPE ) used as a control . After 54 months , the restorations were evaluated in accordance with the modified United States Public Health Service criteria . The McNemar and Friedman tests were used for statistical analysis , at a level of significance of 5 % . Five failed restorations were observed during the follow-up . A change to unacceptable restoration occurred for one Esthet-X , two Filtek Z350 , and two Filtek Z250 restorations , which received the clinical ly unacceptable score , Charlie , for both anatomic form and marginal adaptation . Secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity occurred in one Filtek Z250 and one Filtek Z350 restoration . When the five evaluation periods ( baseline and six , 12 , 30 , and 54 months ) were compared , significant differences were found in the marginal adaptation of Filtek Z250 and Filtek Z350 . Significant differences in the roughness criteria ( p=0.005 ) were also observed when the three composites were compared after 54 months ( Filtek Z350 > Filtek Z250 > Esthet-X ) , always within clinical ly acceptable limits . The material s investigated showed acceptable clinical performance for Class I restoration after 54 months . Long-term reevaluations are necessary for a more detailed analysis of these composites
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 ? ”