Three-Year Clinical Evaluation of Class II Posterior Composite Restorations

Three-Year Clinical Evaluation of Class II Posterior Composite Restorations Placed With Different Techniques and Flowable Composite Linings in Endodontically Treated Teeth

Status

Completed

Phases

Study type

Interventional

Source

ClinicalTrials.gov

Registry ID

NCT02858947

Enrollment

Registered

2016-08-08

Start date

2011-03-31

Completion date

2015-01-31

Last updated

2016-08-08

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Dental Caries

Keywords

composite resin, bulk-fill, teeth endodontically-treated

Brief summary

The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical effectiveness of direct resin composite restorations placed with different placement techniques (incremental or bulk) and with different flowable linings (conventional or bulk-fill flowable) used in open-sandwich technique, in endodontically treated Class II cavities (mesio-occlusal or disto-occlusal), in a randomized controlled comparison.

Detailed description

Forty-seven pairs Class II (mesio-occlusal or disto-occlusal) composite restorations were placed in 37 patients. In all cavities, Adper Single Bond 2 was used. In one of the cavities of each pair, a conventional flowable composite, Aelite Flo, was applied in approximately 2mm thick, and the remaining cavity was restored incrementally with GrandioSO. In the second cavity, a bulk-fill flowable composite, x-tra base, was applied in approximately 4 mm thick in bulk increments and the remaining 2mm occlusal part of the cavity was restored with GrandioSO. All cavities were restored with open-sandwich technique by the same operator. At baseline and after 6-month, 1-, 2- and 3-year follow-up visits, restorations were evaluated by Modified USPHS criteria.

Interventions

PROCEDUREAelite Flo

Microhybrid flowable composite

PROCEDUREx-tra base

Bulk-fill flowable composite

Study design

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Intervention model

PARALLEL

Primary purpose

TREATMENT

Masking

DOUBLE (Subject, Investigator)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

ALL

Age

19 Years to 41 Years

Healthy volunteers

Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Permanent premolars and molars without any restorations were included in the study. Every tooth included in the study had neighboring teeth and were in occlusion to antagonistic teeth.

Exclusion criteria

* Patients were excluded who needed indirect restorations due to significant loss of tooth structure, known allergies to product ingredients, had poor oral hygiene and a history of bruxism.

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame	Description
Clinical performance evaluation of different composite resin restorations with USPHS criteria	three years	Every year in three years period

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026