Objective: The purpose of this double-blind, randomised trial was to compare the clinical performance of a hybrid composite (Clearfil AP-X, Kuraray, Tokyo) and a nanocomposite (Filtek Z350, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN) over a period of 2 years in non-carious class V lesions using a modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) system.
Methods: Forty-six patients with at least one pair of equivalent non-carious cervical lesions under occlusion and a mean age of 44.1 years (range 27-66 years; median 45 years) were enrolled in this study. A total of 116 restorations (58 with each material) were placed according to manufacturer's instructions by two calibrated operators. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and at 6, 12 and 24 months after placement using the USPHS criteria for retention, colour match, marginal discolouration, marginal adaptation, anatomic form, surface texture and secondary caries. Statistical analysis was conducted using the Cochran and the McNemar tests at a significance level of 5% (P < 0.05).
Results: No surface texture changes or secondary caries were detected in association with any restorations. The retention rates for Clearfil AP-X (100%) and for Filtek Z350 (91.38%) did not differ significantly (P > 0.05). Two Z350 restorations were completely lost after 2 years. No significant differences were observed in the colour match, marginal discolouration, marginal adaptation or anatomic form.
Conclusions: There were no significant differences in the clinical performances between the materials.
Clinical relevance: Both restorative materials exhibited acceptable clinical performance in class V non-carious lesions 2 years post-restoration.