Clinical Evaluation of Low-shrinkage Bioactive Material Giomer Versus Nanohybrid Resin Composite Restorations: A Two-year Prospective Controlled Clinical Trial.

This study evaluated the clinical performance of low-shrinkage bioactive resin composite compared with a conventional nanohybrid resin composite. A total of 35 patients (18 males, 17 females; mean age: 29±9 years old) received, randomly, 35 pairs of fillings restored with either low-shrinkage bioactive material employing Giomer filler technology (Beautifil II LS, Shofu Inc, Kyoto, Japan) or conventional nanohybrid resin composite (Clearfil Majesty Posterior, Kuraray, Japan) in Class I and Class II cavities. Two operators made all the restorations using the corresponding adhesive resins: FL-Bond II (Shofu Inc) and Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray), according to each manufacturer's instructions. Two calibrated operators evaluated the restorations two weeks after placement (baseline), at six months, and at one and two years using FDI criteria (Scores 1-5). Data were analyzed using the McNemar test (α=0.05). Mean observation time was 27.4 ± 4.1 months (min=20.8; max=33.7). In both groups, according to FDI criteria, the restorations were mostly rated with best scores (Score 1 or 2) for biological, functional, and optical parameters. For one filling in the group restored with nanohybrid resin composite, a small and localized secondary caries lesion was observed and monitored at the one- and two-year follow-ups. One restoration in the low-shrinkage Giomer restorative group was accepted as a failure due to retention loss. Over the two-year follow-up, both the Giomer and the nanohybrid resin composite restorations' performance was clinically acceptable.

Clinical Evaluation of Silorane and Nano-hybrid Resin Composite Restorations in Class II Cavities up to 3 Years.

In this study, the clinical performance of a silorane-based resin composite (SC) vs a nano-hybrid resin composite (NHC) was evaluated in Class II cavities. From January 2012 to February 2013, a total of 29 patients (eight men, 21 women; mean age, 24 ± 5 years) received 29 pairs of restorations using both SC (Filtek Silorane, 3M ESPE) and NHC (Filtek Z550, 3M ESPE) materials. Patients were followed until February 2015. One operator performed all restorations using the corresponding adhesive resins according to the manufacturers' instructions. Two calibrated independent examiners evaluated the restorations at one week, six months, and then annually using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria for anatomic form, marginal adaptation, color match, surface roughness, marginal discoloration, secondary caries, and postoperative sensitivity. Changes in the USPHS parameters were analyzed with the McNemar test (α=0.05). The mean observation period was 31.2 months. Marginal adaptation was the only parameter that showed a significant difference and was worse for SC than NHC (p=0.012). At the final recall, 17 restorations from the SC group and five from the NHC group received a score of 1 (explorer catches). These scores were significantly different between baseline and final recall for SC (p<0.001) but not for NHC (p>0.05). Both NHC and SC performed similarly in Class II restorations up to three years except for marginal adaptation, for which the latter demonstrated significant deterioration at the final recall compared with baseline.