Aim: The purpose of the present study was to compare the clinical efficacy between a flowable-type nano-hybrid composite and a paste-type composite for posterior restoration.
Methods: Of 62 posterior teeth in 33 patients (mean age: 34.1 years), 31 were filled with a paste-type composite (Heliomolar [HM] group), and another 31 with a flowable nano-hybrid composite (MI FIL [MI] group). Clinical efficacy was evaluated at 2 years after the restoration.
Results: There were no differences for retention, surface texture deterioration, anatomical form change, deterioration of marginal adaptation, and secondary caries, while a statistical difference was found for marginal discoloration, which was significantly greater in the HM group (P < 0.05). Furthermore, color matching in the MI group was superior to that in the HM group immediately after the restoration throughout the study period.
Conclusions: The present 2-year clinical evaluation of different composites showed that the flowable nano-hybrid composite could be an effective esthetic material for posterior restoration.
Keywords: clinical comparison; flowable-type composite; nano-hybrid composite; paste-type composite; posterior restoration.
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.