| Summary: | Objective:The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of bulk-fill restorative materials applied to Class II cavities retrospectively.Methods:In the study, Class II restorations which were restored with bulk-fill materials in the Department of Restorative Dentistry Selçuk University were determined from the records by using the HIMS (Hospital Information Management System) automation program and the patients were recalled for the controls. Three of the bulk-fill materials used in our clinic [Equia Forte (EF), Tetric EvoCeram Bulk-Fill (TBF) and Filtek Bulk-Fill Posterior Restorative (FBF)] were evaluated. A total of 79 patients and 192 restorations were included in the study. Restorations were assessed according to modified USPHS criteria during the 6th, 12th and 24th months from the date of application. The chi-square test was used for statistical analysis of the difference between the groups (p<0.05). The Cochran Q test was used for the significance of the difference between the time-dependent changes in each group (p<0.05).Results:After 24 months, 139 restorations were evaluated in 64 patients. Thirteen EF and 3 TBF restorations were lost, while no loss was observed in the FBF group. There were clinically acceptable changes in composite restorations. In addition, no statistically significant difference was observed between the clinical performances of these materials in terms of all criteria (p>0.05). However, a statistically significant difference was observed between the only EF group and the TBF and FBF groups in terms of retention criteria at 24 months (p<0.05).Conclusion:In this study, during a two-year follow-up period, the two bulk fill composite materials showed similar clinical performance; while the high viscosity glass ionomer material showed lower clinical performance.
|
|---|