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

Abstract

AbstractObjectivesThis 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.MethodsThirty‐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.ResultsTwenty‐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.ConclusionsBoth 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 RelevanceThe results of this trial suggests that there is a promising evidence supporting the use of ion‐releasing composites.