One-year clinical evaluation of bulk-fill flowable vs. regular nanofilled composite in non-carious cervical lesions

ObjectiveThe aim of this double-blind, randomized trial was to evaluate the 1-year clinical performance of a bulk-fill flowable and a regular nanofilled composite in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs).MethodsTwenty-two subjects with at least two NCCLs were enrolled in the study. A total of 89 restorations were performed by a single operator using Filtek Supreme (FS) Ultra Universal or Filtek Bulk (FB) Fill Flowable. A universal adhesive (Scotchbond Universal Adhesive) was used with a self-etching approach in dentin. The restorations were evaluated by two independent and previously calibrated examiners at baseline (7days), 6months and 1year, according to the USPHS modified criteria. Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze the differences between composites and Wilcoxon signed rank test for comparisons between the baseline and follow-ups (=5%).ResultsOne restoration was considered clinically unacceptable due to loss of retention after 6months in the FS group. FS presented statistically high scores for surface roughness when compared to FB after 1year (p<0.05), but both were considered clinically acceptable. After 1year, the frequency of clinically unacceptable rates was 3.3% for anatomical form in the FB group, 1.1% for retention in the FS group, and 2.2% for marginal adaptation in both groups. All restorations, in both groups, presented score 0 over the 1-year period for marginal staining, postoperative sensitivity, and secondary caries.ConclusionBoth composite resins showed acceptable clinical performances for the restoration of NCCLs after 1year.Clinical relevanceBoth bulk-fill flowable and regular nanofilled composites showed good clinical performances for the restoration of NCCLs after 1year.