Two-year evaluation of a nano-hybrid and a bulk-fill resin composite: a randomized, double-blind split-mouth clinical study.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the 2-year clinical performance of a bulk-fill composite resin and a nano-hybrid-filled composite resin in 6-12-year-old children in a split-mouth design.

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

This randomized, split-mouth, and double-blind study was conducted on 89 patients aged 6-12 years with caries on bilateral mandibular first molars. In a split-mouth design, restorations of mandibular permanent molars were completed with nano-hybrid organically modified ceramic (ORMOCER)-based bulk-fill composite resin Admira Fusion x-tra (Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany) and nano-hybrid composite Grandio (Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany). Futurabond U single dose (Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany) was used with selective enamel etching. The clinical success of the restorations was evaluated using USPHS and FDI criteria at 6, 12, and 24-month follow-up controls.

RESULTS

In the 2-year follow-up, all restorations were clinically acceptable. Grandio was significantly worse than Admira Fusion x-tra in terms of surface luster and superficial change (p < 0.05). Surface staining and color match scores increased in Admira Fusion x-tra compared with Grandio significantly (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Although both materials showed acceptable clinical performance over 2 years, a significant difference was observed between the surface luster, surface staining, marginal adaptation, and staining of the nano-hybrid composite placed with the incremental technique and the bulk-fill ORMOCER-based composite resin.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: As an alternative to nano-hybrid composite resins, using bulk-fill restorative materials, which can be indicated in the proper case, may contribute to shortening treatment procedures and increasing patient and physician comfort, leading to clinical success.