Thirty-Six-Month Clinical Comparison of Bulk Fill and Nanofill Composite Restorations

Oper Dent. Sep/Oct 2017;42(5):478-485. doi: 10.2341/16-220-C. Epub 2017 Jun 5.


Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a bulk fill resin composite in class II restorations.

Methods and materials: In accordance with a split-mouth design, 50 patients received at least one pair of restorations, restored with a nanofill resin composite (Filtek Ultimate [FU]) and with a bulk fill resin composite (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill [TB]). Each restorative resin was used with its respective adhesive system according to the manufacturers' instructions. A total of 104 class II restorations were placed by two operators. The restorations were blindly evaluated by two examiners at baseline and at six, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months using modified US Public Health Service Ryge criteria. The comparison of the two restorative materials for each category was performed with the chi-square test (α=0.05). The baseline scores were compared with those at the recall visits using the Cochran Q-test.

Results: At six, 12, 18, and 24 months, the recall rate was 100%, 98%, 94%, and 82%, respectively, with a retention rate of 100%. At 36 months, 81 restorations were evaluated in 39 patients with a recall rate of 78%. For marginal adaptation, four restorations from the TB group and 10 from the FU group rated as Bravo. Two restorations from the TB and eight restorations from the FU group showed marginal discoloration. There were statistically significant differences between the two restorative resins in terms of marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration (p<0.05). No differences were observed between the restorative resins in terms of retention (p>0.05). One restored tooth from the FU group was crowned. The retention rates for the TB and the FU groups were 100%. In the FU group, two restorations showed slightly rough surfaces, and two showed a slight mismatch in color. None of the restorations showed postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries, or loss of anatomic form.

Conclusions: The tested bulk fill restorative resin demonstrated better clinical performance in terms of marginal discoloration and marginal adaptation.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Randomized Controlled Trial

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Composite Resins / therapeutic use*
  • Dental Restoration Failure
  • Dental Restoration, Permanent / methods*
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Time Factors
  • Young Adult


  • Composite Resins
  • Filtek Ultimate Flowable
  • Tetric EvoCeram