One-year clinical evaluation of bulk-fill flowable vs. regular nanofilled composite in non-carious cervical lesions
- 346 Downloads
The aim of this double-blind, randomized trial was to evaluate the 1-year clinical performance of a bulk-fill flowable and a regular nanofilled composite in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs).
Twenty-two subjects with at least two NCCLs were enrolled in the study. A total of 89 restorations were performed by a single operator using Filtek Supreme (FS) Ultra Universal or Filtek Bulk (FB) Fill Flowable. A universal adhesive (Scotchbond™ Universal Adhesive) was used with a self-etching approach in dentin. The restorations were evaluated by two independent and previously calibrated examiners at baseline (7 days), 6 months and 1 year, according to the USPHS modified criteria. Mann–Whitney U test was used to analyze the differences between composites and Wilcoxon signed rank test for comparisons between the baseline and follow-ups (α = 5%).
One restoration was considered clinically unacceptable due to loss of retention after 6 months in the FS group. FS presented statistically high scores for surface roughness when compared to FB after 1 year (p < 0.05), but both were considered clinically acceptable. After 1 year, the frequency of clinically unacceptable rates was 3.3% for anatomical form in the FB group, 1.1% for retention in the FS group, and 2.2% for marginal adaptation in both groups. All restorations, in both groups, presented score 0 over the 1-year period for marginal staining, postoperative sensitivity, and secondary caries.
Both composite resins showed acceptable clinical performances for the restoration of NCCLs after 1 year.
Both bulk-fill flowable and regular nanofilled composites showed good clinical performances for the restoration of NCCLs after 1 year.
KeywordsRandomized clinical trial Non-carious cervical lesion Bulk-fill Nanofilled composite Flowable composite
The work was supported by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 2.Litonjua LA, Andreana S, Cohen RE (2005) Toothbrush abrasions and noncarious cervical lesions: evolving concepts. Compend Contin Educ Dent 26:767–768 770–774, 776Google Scholar
- 4.Grippo JO (1991) Abfractions: a new classification of hard tissue lesions of teeth. J Esthet Dent 3:14–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.1991.tb00799.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Pecie R, Krejci I, García-Godoy F, Bortolotto T (2011) Noncarious cervical lesions (NCCL) a clinical concept based on the literature review. Part 2: restoration. Am J Dent 24:183–192Google Scholar
- 32.3M ESPE (2017) Technical product file. https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1363018O/3m-filtek-supreme-ultra-universal-restorative-tpp-na.pdf. Accessed 18 Apr 2018
- 33.3M ESPE (2017) Technical product file. https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/976300O/filtek-bulk-fill-flowable-restorative-technical-product-profile.pdf. Accessed 18 Apr 2018
- 45.Litonjua LA, Cabanilla LL, Abbott LJ (2012) Plaque formation and marginal gingivitis associated with restorative materials. Compend Contin Educ Dent 33:e6–e10Google Scholar