The clinical performance of both conventional and flowable giomer restorative materials was particularly good in Class I restorations after three years of service.
This study evaluated and compared the clinical performance of a flowable and a conventional giomer restorative material after three years. Forty-four pairs of restorations (total n=88) were placed in Class I cavities with either a flowable giomer (Beautifil Flow Plus F00; Shofu Inc, Kyoto, Japan) or a conventional giomer restorative material (Beautifil II; Shofu Inc) after the application of a dentin adhesive (FL-Bond II; Shofu Inc) and a flowable liner (Beautifil Flow Plus F03; Shofu Inc). After 3 years, 39 pairs of restorations were evaluated with the modified United States Public Health Service criteria, and digital color photographs of restorations were taken at each patient visit. The evaluation parameters were as follows: color match, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, retention, secondary caries formation, anatomic form, surface texture, and postoperative sensitivity. Evaluations were recorded as a clinically ideal situation (Alpha), a clinically acceptable situation (Bravo), or a clinically unacceptable situation (Charlie). Data were analyzed with Fisher’s exact and McNemar tests (α=0.05).
None of the restorations showed retention loss, postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries, or color change. The performance of Beautifil II in terms of marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, and surface anatomic form was significantly lower at the 36-month follow-up than at baseline (p=0.007). There were no significant differences between the baseline and 36-month follow-up scores for the other criteria for Beautifil II (p>0.05). No differences were found between the baseline and the 36-month follow-up scores for any of the criteria for Beautifil Flow Plus F00 (p>0.05). No statistically significant difference in overall clinical performance was found between the 2 materials after 36 months (p>0.05).
The three-year clinical performance of both restorative materials (Beautifil Flow Plus F00 and Beautifil II) was very good and not significantly different for any of the parameters evaluated.