A randomized trial evaluates restorations in cervical lesions over 6 years, suggesting similar effectiveness of materials.
Objectives To evaluate the clinical performance of a regular bulk-fill (Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior) and a regular nanofilled (Filtek Z350 XT) resin composite in restoring non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) with different occlusogingival distance (OGD). Methods A randomized, parallel, double-blind controlled trial was conducted with 77 participants. One hundred and forty NCCLs were categorized by their OGD as 1.5 mm (±10%) or 3 mm (±10%). Lesions were randomized into four groups (n=35) and restored with Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior (1.5 mm-B and 3 mm-B) or Filtek Z350 XT (1.5 mm-C and 3 mm-C). The self-etch adhesive Clearfil SE Bond was used in all procedures. Two calibrated, blinded examiners evaluated the restorations at 6 years (range 66-94 months) using modified USPHS criteria. Survival analysis (retention/fracture) was performed using Kaplan-Meier (Log-rank test), and secondary outcomes were analyzed with Friedman’s and Wilcoxon tests (α=0.05). Results After 6 years, 99 restorations were evaluated. Thirteen restorations were lost resulting in retention rates of 85.7% for 1.5 mm-C, 91.4% for 1.5 mm-B, 91.4% for 3 mm-C, and 91.4% for 3 mm-B. Significant marginal discrepancy was observed for 1.5 mm-B, 3 mm-C, and 3 mm-B (p < 0.01). Fifty-eight restorations showed minor marginal staining and 72 were rated Bravo for surface texture, with no significant differences among groups or compared to the 30-month evaluation (p>0.05). No significant difference was found for the other parameters. Conclusion The regular bulk-fill demonstrated similar clinical performance to the regular nanofilled resin composite in NCCLs, regardless of the OGD after 6 years of clinical service. Clinical significance This is the first 6 years clinical trial showing the long-term behavior of a bulk-fill resin composite in NCCLs. The OGD of NCCLs appears not to influence the clinical performance of resin composite.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
correia et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: