Clinical comparison of high‐viscosity glass‐hybrid systems with a sculptable bulk‐fill composite resin in different cavity types

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveThis randomized, double‐blind clinical investigation assessed the performance of two high‐viscosity glass‐ionomer systems and a bulk‐fill composite in different cavity types.Materials and MethodsIn 146 participants, 360 (class I, II, and V) cavities were restored using three different materials (Equia Forte HT, Chemfill Rock, and SonicFill 2) with equal allocation. Using modified World Dental Federation criteria, restorations were assessed after 1 week, 6 months, and 18 months by an experienced examiner. Statistical analysis was conducted using Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon signed rank tests (α = 0.05).ResultsAfter 18 months, 267 restorations were assessed in 116 participants. After 18 months, 5 Equia Forte HT restorations failed due to debonding and fracture. Only one loss was observed in the Chemfill Rock restorations. Equia Forte HT exhibited significantly lower retention than SonicFill 2 after 18 months (p = 0.019), irrespective of cavity type. At 1 week, 3 Class I restorations with SF showed postoperative sensitivity. The type of cavity did not affect the performance of the restorative materials used (p > 0.05).ConclusionEquia Forte HT and Chemfill Rock presented similar clinical performance regardless of color match. Equia Forte HT showed a lower performance compared to SonicFill 2.Clinical significanceGlass‐hybrid materials presented a lower performance in terms of color match or retention when compared to a sculptable bulk‐fill composite resin.