Clinical performance of two ion-releasing bulk-fill composites in class I and class II restorations: A two-year evaluation.

OBJECTIVES

This randomized clinical trial evaluated and compared the 2-year clinical performance of two ion-releasing bulk-fill composites (Cention N and Surefil One) with that of a conventional bulk-fill resin composite (Powerfil) in Class I and II cavities.

METHODS

Thirty-two patients, each with 3 Class I and/or Class II cavities under occlusion, were enrolled in this trial. A total of 96 restorations were placed, 32 for each material, as follows: a self-adhesive composite; Surefil-one, alkasite; Cention N, and a bulk-fill resin composite; Powerfil. The restorations were placed by a single operator. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline (1-week), 6-months, 1-year, and 2-years by two independent examiners using the FDI criteria. Intergroup and intragroup comparisons were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Friedman Tests. Multiple comparisons between groups were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon-rank tests. The level of significance was set at α = 0.05.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients with a total of 81 restorations were evaluated at the end of the 2-years with 84.35% recall rates. Clinical success rates were 100%, 100%, and 96.3% for Powerfil, Surefil-one, and Cention N, respectively. Cention N showed a statistically significant (p < 0.05) decreased marginal integrity in comparison with resin composite at the 2-year evaluation. No recurrent decay was detected in any restoration.

CONCLUSIONS

Both ion-releasing bulk-fill composites provided acceptable clinical performance similar to bulk-fill composite in Class I and II restorations over a 2-year period.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of this trial suggests that there is a promising evidence supporting the use of ion-releasing composites.