title: Three-year clinical evaluation of class II posterior composite restorations placed with different techniques and flowable composite linings in endodontically treated teeth.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The objective of this study is to evaluate the clinical performance of direct resin composite restorations placed with different techniques (incremental or bulk) and different flowable linings (conventional or bulk-fill) in endodontically treated teeth.
  
  
  METHODS
  Forty-seven pair class II (mesio-occlusal or disto-occlusal) composite restorations were placed in 37 patients. In all cavities, Adper Single Bond 2 was used. In one of the cavities of each pair, a conventional flowable composite, Aelite Flo, was applied in approximately 2 mm thick, and the remaining cavity was restored incrementally with GrandioSO. In the second cavity, a bulk-fill flowable composite, x-tra base, was applied in approximately 4 mm thick in bulk increments and the remaining 2-mm occlusal part of the cavity was restored with GrandioSO. All cavities were restored with open-sandwich technique by the same operator. At baseline and after 6-month, 1-, 2-, and 3-year follow-up visits, restorations were evaluated by modified USPHS criteria.
  
  
  RESULTS
  At 3-year recall, 33 restorations with Aelite Flo lining and 33 with x-tra base lining were available. Two restorations from each group (6.0 %) were scored as Bravo in terms of surface texture. One restoration's color match from x-tra base group scored as Bravo (3.0 %). All other evaluated criteria were scored as Alfa (100 %) for all restorations. No statistically significant difference between the two groups was found in all evaluated criteria during 3-year period (p > 0.05).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Bulk-filling technique showed clinically acceptable performance comparable to the incremental technique.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Restorations placed with bulk-filling technique with x-tra base lining and incremental technique with a conventional flowable lining showed highly clinical performance over 3-year period.
authors.affiliation: Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayis University, Samsun, Turkey. dtemelc@yahoo.com.
authors.forename: Emel
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Karaman
authors.affiliation: Balgat Oral and Tooth Health Center, Ankara, Turkey.
authors.forename: Busra
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Keskin
authors.affiliation: Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Endodontics, Ondokuz Mayis University, Samsun, Turkey.
authors.forename: Ugur
authors.initials: U
authors.lastname: Inan
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D017609:Barium Compounds; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; D003188:Composite Resins; D003736:Dental Cavity Lining / Q000379:methods*; D003738:Dental Cements; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D012822:Silicon Dioxide; D019553:Tooth, Nonvital; D016896:Treatment Outcome
chemical_list: C554641:Adper single bond 2; C121035:Aeliteflo; D017609:Barium Compounds; D003188:Composite Resins; D003738:Dental Cements; C000613960:Grandioso Flow; C111840:flowable hybrid composite; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; D012822:Silicon Dioxide
keywords: Bulk-fill composite; Resin composite restoration