International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 1 ( January-March, 2024 ) > List of Articles


Clinical Evaluation of Self-adhesive Bulk-fill Resin Composite vs Conventionally-bonded Bulk-fill Resin Composite in Restoration of Proximal Lesions: An 18 Months Follow-up

Mohamed M Sabry, Omaima M Safwat, Dina M El-Kady

Keywords : Adaptability, Bulk-fill, Bulk-fill resin composite, Proximal lesions, Resin composite, Self-adhesive

Citation Information : Sabry MM, Safwat OM, El-Kady DM. Clinical Evaluation of Self-adhesive Bulk-fill Resin Composite vs Conventionally-bonded Bulk-fill Resin Composite in Restoration of Proximal Lesions: An 18 Months Follow-up. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2024; 14 (1):3-9.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1442

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 30-03-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Purpose: To compare the clinical efficacy of self-adhesive Bulk-fill resin composite and traditionally bonded Bulk-fill resin composite in the restoration of proximal lesions during the course of 18 months. Materials and methods: In a parallel study design, 40 participants with carious proximal lesions were assigned at random to the intervention (Surefil-one) and comparison (Bulk-fill) groups. Two blinded assessors evaluated restorations at initial screening (1 week), 6, 12, and 18 months using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria measuring (marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, surface roughness, anatomic form, postoperative sensitivity, recurrent caries, color match, and retention analysis). Categorical data were described as frequency and percentage. Intergroup and intragroup comparisons were done using the Chi-squared test. Results: Intergroup comparisons of both materials after 18 months revealed no differences of statistical significance in marginal adaptation (p = 0.0952), recurrent caries (p = 0.8728), postoperative sensitivity (p = 0.5936), retention analysis (p = 0.3173), and proximal contact (p = 0.9707). There was a difference of statistical significance between both materials for marginal discoloration (p = 0.0235), color match (p = 0.007), anatomic form (p = 0.0023) after 18 months, and surface roughness after 12 and 18 months (p = 0.0013 and 0.0001, respectively). Conclusion: Over an 18-month test time frame, a self-adhesive Bulk-fill resin composite hybrid (Surefil one) revealed clinically less satisfying performance when compared to traditionally bonded Bulk-fill resin composite. Surefil one can be employed as a clinical alternative in intermediate short-term restoration of proximal lesions.

PDF Share
  1. Maas MS, Alania Y, Natale LC, et al. Trends in restorative composites research: what is in the future? Braz Oral Res 2017;31(suppl 1):e55. DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2017.vol31.0055
  2. Neves P, Pires S, Marto CM, et al. Evaluation of microleakage of a new bioactive material for restoration of posterior teeth: an in vitro radioactive model. Appl Sci 2022;12(22):11827. DOI: 10.3390/app122211827
  3. Cidreira Boaro LC, Pereira Lopes D, de Souza ASC, et al. Clinical performance and chemical-physical properties of bulk fill composites resin -a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent Mater 2019;35(10):e249–e264. DOI: 10.1016/
  4. Cieplik F, Hiller KA, Buchalla W, et al. Randomized clinical split-mouth study on a novel self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative vs. a conventional bulk-fill composite for restoration of class II cavities - results after three years. J Dent 2022;125:104275. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104275
  5. Nakano EL, de Souza A, Boaro L, et al. Polymerization stress and gap formation of self-adhesive, bulk-fill and flowable composite resins. Oper Dent 2020;45(6):E308–E316. DOI: 10.2341/19-166-L
  6. Mine A, De Munck J, Van Ende A, et al. Limited interaction of a self-adhesive flowable composite with dentin/enamel characterized by TEM. Dent Mater 2017;33(2):209–217. DOI: 10.1016/
  7. de Brito O, de Oliveira I, Monteiro G. Hydrolytic and biological degradation of Bulk-fill and self-adhering resin composites. Oper Dent 2019;44(5):E223–E233. DOI: 10.2341/17-390-L
  8. Łagocka R, Skoczyk-Jaworska M, Mazurek-Mochol M. Self-adhesive, bulk-fill bioactive materials as an alternative to silver amalgam in restorative dentistry. Pomeranian J Life Sci 2022;68(2):36–44. DOI: 10.21164/pomjlifesci.840
  9. Rathke A, Pfefferkorn F, McGuire MK, et al. One-year clinical results of restorations using a novel self-adhesive resin-based bulk-fill restorative. Sci Rep 2022;12(1). DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-07965-z
  10. Alrwaili AA, Albalawi RI, Alasiri AS, et al. Evaluate antimicrobial properties of fluoride release dental resin composite. Ann Med Health Sci Res 2022;12(S1):115–120. DOI: 10.54608.annalsmedical.2022.s1
  11. Guney T, Yazici AR. 24-month clinical evaluation of different bulk-fill restorative resins in class II restorations. Oper Dent 2020;45(2):123–133. DOI: 10.2341/18-144-C
  12. Labib ME, Hassanein OE, Moussa M, et al. Selective versus stepwise removal of deep carious lesions in permanent teeth: a randomised controlled trial from Egypt-an interim analysis. BMJ Open 2019;9(9):e030957. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030957
  13. Innes NP, Frencken JE, Bjørndal L, et al. Managing carious lesions: consensus recommendations on terminology. Adv Dent Res 2016;28(2):49–57. DOI: 10.1177/0022034516639276
  14. Kandil SAA, Farid MR, Ibrahim SH. Clinical fracture of fiber reinforced resin composite versus conventional resin composite restorations in endodontically treated molars: a randomized clinical trial. Indian J Public Health Res Dev 2021;12(2):332. DOI: 10.37506/ijphrd.v12i2.14141
  15. Salem MN, Hassanein OE, ElKassas DW, et al. 12-Months clinical evaluation of fiber reinforced bulk fill resin composite versus incremental packing of nanohybrid resin composite in restoration of deep proximal lesions of permanent molars: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Stomatol Croat 2022;56(3):267–280. DOI: 10.15644/asc56/3/5
  16. Orłowski M, Tarczydło B, Chałas R. Evaluation of marginal integrity of four bulk-fill dental composite materials: in vitro study. Scientific World Journal 2015;2015:701262. DOI: 10.1155/2015/701262
  17. Gerula-Szymańska A, Kaczor K, Lewusz-Butkiewicz K, et al. Marginal integrity of flowable and packable bulk fill materials used for class II restorations -a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. Dent Mater J 2020;39(3):335–344. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2018-180
  18. Heck K, Manhart J, Hickel R, et al. Clinical evaluation of the bulk fill composite QuiXfil in molar class I and II cavities: 10-year results of a RCT. Dent Mater 2018;34(6):e138–e147. DOI: 10.1016/
  19. Yao C, Ahmed MH, Okazaki Y, et al. Bonding efficacy of a new self-adhesive restorative onto flat dentin vs class-i cavity-bottom dentin. J Adhes Dent 2020;22(1):65–77. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a43999
  20. Klee JE, Renn C, Elsner O. Development of novel polymer technology for a new class of restorative dental materials. J Adhes Dent 2020;22(1):35–45. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a43995
  21. Sarrett DC, Brooks CN, Rose JT. Clinical performance evaluation of a packable posterior composite in bulk-cured restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137(1):71–80. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0024
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.