Abstract
Bulk-fill composites are increasingly used in stress-bearing areas in posterior teeth, with a diversity of reports concerning their effectiveness and clinical reliability. The objective of this randomized clinical control study was to investigate the effectiveness of bulk-fill versus veneered bulkfill Class II composite restorations. A double-blind split-mouth technique was employed in 80 subjects recruited for restoring Class II caries in one molar bilaterally in the same arch following respective inclusion and exclusion criteria and after obtaining written consent. While one molar was randomly restored with bulk-fill composite using the sealed-envelope technique, Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill (TBF), the contralateral was restored with a bulk-fill composite veneered with an increment of a heavy-body microhybrid composite-Tetric-Ceram HB (TBF/V). Boxonly cavities were prepared and received etch-and-rinse adhesive bonding and Tetric N-Bond treatment before composite insertion. Restorations were assessed at 24 hours, 2 weeks, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months for esthetic, functional, and biological quality employing the FDI ranking criteria. Friedman repeated-measures analysis of variance, the McNemar test, and the Cohen's kappa statistical test were used for statistical analysis. Over a 24-month interval, none of the test restorations were ranked as clinically unsatisfactory. In terms of functional criteria, clinically excellent restorations were significantly more prevalent in TBF/V than in TBF (p<0.05). For long-term satisfactory performance of Class II bulk-fill composites, an occlusal veneering increment of conventional heavy body microhybrid composite appears to be favorable.