Clinical Performance of Injectable Universal Flowable Composite Versus Conventional Resin Composite Restorations in Proximal Cavities of Posterior Teeth: A One Year Randomized Clinical Trial

Hassan, Nanees Ayman; Abd El Aziz, Rawda Hesham; Abd El Nabi, Ali Essam; El-Zohiery, Ahmed Abd El Fatah

doi:10.21608/adjc.2024.320289.1631

	Clinical Performance of Injectable Universal Flowable Composite Versus Conventional Resin Composite Restorations in Proximal Cavities of Posterior Teeth: A One Year Randomized Clinical Trial
Advanced Dental Journal
Volume 7, Issue 3, July 2025, Page 519-536 PDF (732.91 K)
Document Type: Original Article
DOI: 10.21608/adjc.2024.320289.1631
View on SCiNiTO
Authors
Nanees Ayman Hassan ¹; Rawda Hesham Abd El Aziz ²; Ali Essam Abd El Nabi ³; Ahmed Abd El Fatah El-Zohiery ⁴
¹Conservative Dentistry Department, October University for Modern Sciences and Arts, Giza, Egypt
²Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
³Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, October University for Modern Sciences and Arts, Giza, Egypt
⁴Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
Abstract
Aim: This study evaluated the clinical performance of injectable universal flowable resin composite versus conventional nanohybrid resin composite in posterior proximal restorations over a one-year follow-up. Subjects and methods: Thirty patients who had proximal carious lesions in posterior teeth were randomly allocated into two groups (n=15) in which they received either; injectable universal flowable resin composite (PALFIQUE® Universal Flow; Tokuyama, Japan) or conventional nanohybrid resin composite (ESTELITE® Alpha; Tokuyama, Japan). Selective enamel etching bonding protocol was used for both groups using the self-etch adhesive (PALFIQUE BOND, Tokuyama, Japan). The composite restorations were inserted using the incremental technique. Restorations were evaluated at baseline, after 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months by two blinded assessors using modified USPHS criteria. Results: Intergroup comparison between both materials showed no statistically significant differences within all follow-up periods for all tested outcomes (P>0.05). Intragroup comparison within each material showed no statistically significant difference between different follow-up periods for all tested outcomes (P>0.0083). After 6 and 12 months of follow-up, two restorations were scored Bravo in the injectable universal flowable resin composite group. Conclusion: After one year of clinical service, no significant differences were observed between the injectable universal flowable resin composite and conventional nanohybrid resin composite for the parameters analyzed. Both materials provided acceptable clinical behavior in class II restorations. Clinical Significance: This study presents the possibility of using the injectable universal flowable resin composite with high filler content in restoring class II cavities.
Keywords
clinical performance; injectable universal flowable resin composite; conventional resin composite; proximal cavities


Statistics Article View: 98 PDF Download: 50