Clinical performance of different composite materials in class II cavities bonded with universal adhesives

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveTo assess the clinical performance of two composite materials with two universal adhesives and a two‐step self‐etch adhesive on class II restorations for 18 months.Materials and MethodsTwo hundred and fifty‐two class II cavities were bonded with G‐Premio Bond, Single Bond Universal, and Clearfil SE Bond 2. A nanohybrid composite (Filtek Z550 Universal) or a microhybrid composite (G‐aenial Posterior) was used to fill the bonded cavities. World Dental Federation criteria were used to evaluate the restorations at 1 week, 6, and 18 months. Statistical analysis was performed using Friedman and Fisher's exact tests (α = 0.05).ResultsRetention loss and fracture were not observed in any restorations during the 18 months. The adhesives used showed no significant differences for all criteria examined (p > 0.05) regardless of composite material. After an 18‐month follow‐up, seven G‐aenial Posterior and three Filtek Z550 Universal restorations presented slight marginal discrepancies, with no significant differences (p = 0.246). At 1 week, Filtek Z550 Universal (9.5%) led to significantly higher postoperative sensitivity compared with G‐aenial Posterior (0.8%) (p = 0.001).ConclusionsUniversal adhesives showed similar clinical performance to Clearfil SE Bond 2. The restorations with Filtek Z550 Universal had a relatively higher risk of postoperative sensitivity.Clinical SignificanceUniversal adhesives were clinically successful for 18 months. At 1 week, the type of composite material used significantly affected the occurrence of postoperative sensitivity.