Open AccessClinical evaluation of class II composite: Resin restorations placed by two different bulk-fill techniques
Author(s) -
Rahaf M Alkurdi,
Souad Abboud
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of orofacial sciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.171
H-Index - 6
eISSN - 2320-4737
pISSN - 0975-8844
DOI - 10.4103/0975-8844.181926
Subject(s) - dentistry , resin composite , materials science , medicine , orthodontics , composite number , composite material
Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical performance of class II composite resin restorations placed by two different bulk-fill techniques according to the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Materials and Methods: Sixty class II restorations were placed in 60 patients in the age range of 20-50 years. The patients were divided into three groups according to the technique of the restoration were applied. Group 1: Tetric Evo Ceram (Ivoclar Vivadent) was placed in 2 mm increments. Group 2: Tertic N Ceram Bulk Fill (Ivoclar Vivadent) was placed in single increment. Group 3: Sonic Fill (Kerr, Kavo) was placed in single increment by sonic vibration. The restorations were evaluated using modified USPHS criteria at baseline and then after 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and 12 months. Results: After 12 months, 58 Class II restorations could be observed. Two cases were dropped out. All the restorations of the three groups showed acceptable clinical performance according to the modified USPHS criteria, and statistically there were no significant differences between the two bulk-fill techniques. Conclusion: Both the bulk-fill techniques performed satisfactorily over the 12-month observation period. Due to the low viscosity of Sonic Fill, it may preponderance Tertic N Ceram Bulk Fill in the regard to depth of cure and marginal integrity and marginal discoloration