Clinical performance of a glass-hybrid system in comparison with a resin composite in two-surface class II restorations: a 5-year randomised multi-centre study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the 5-year clinical performance of a glass hybrid restorative system and a nano-hybrid resin composite in moderate to large two-surface class II cavities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was carried out by dental schools in Zagreb, Croatia; Izmir, Turkey; Belgrade, Serbia; and Milan, Italy. A total of 180 patients requiring two class-II two-surface restorations in the molars of the same jaw were recruited. The teeth were randomly restored with either a nano-hybrid resin composite (Tetric EvoCeram, Ivoclar Vivadent) or a glass-hybrid material (EQUIA Forte, GC). During the 5-year follow-up, two calibrated evaluators at each centre scored the restorations annually using the FDI-2 scoring system. The survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using non-parametric matched pair tests (p < 0.05). RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the overall survival and success rates of the two types of restorations (p>0.05). The success rates (FDI-2 scores 1-3) for EQUIA Forte were 81.9% (average annual failure rate: 3.9%) and 90.7% for Tetric EvoCeram (average annual failure rate: 1.9%). The survival rates (FDI-2 scores 1-4) for EQUIA Forte and Tetric EvoCeram were 94.5% and 94.4%, respectively, with an average annual failure rate of 1.1%. CONCLUSIONS: In terms of success and survival rates, both the glass-hybrid restorative system and the nano-hybrid resin composite have been shown to perform satisfactorily. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of this study indicate that EQUIA Forte can be one of the therapeutic options for moderate to large two-surface class II restorations of posterior teeth.

Clinical Performance of a Glass-Hybrid System Compared with a Resin Composite in the Posterior Region: Results of a 2-year Multicenter Study.

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical performance of a glass hybrid restorative system, EQUIA Forte, with that of a nanohybrid resin composite, Tetric EvoCeram, in two-surface class II cavities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicenter, randomized controlled clinical study was conducted at four different dental schools. In total, 360 restorations were placed in patients in need of two class-II, two-surface restorations in the molar region of the same jaw. Each patient received one glass hybrid restoration (EQUIA Forte, GC) and one resin composite restoration (Tetric EvoCeram, Ivoclar Vivadent). Two independent evaluators performed a clinical evaluation of each site after 1 week (baseline), 1 year, and 2 years using the criteria of the FDI World Dental Federation (FDI-2). RESULTS: The estimated survival rates at the 2-year recall were 93.6% and 94.5% for EQUIA Forte and Tetric EvoCeram, respectively. There were no significant differences in the survival rates or in any of the evaluated esthetic, functional or biological properties between EQUIA Forte and Tetric EvoCeram restorations (p ˃ 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both the glass-hybrid restorative system and nanohybrid resin composite showed good clinical performance in moderate to large two-surface class II restorations in a 2-year follow-up.