Title: 1972 - Multi-Center Clinical Evaluation of Bulk-Fill Glass Hybrid Restorations: One–year Report


L. Sebnem Turkun (Presenter)
Ege University School of Dentistry

Cigdem Atalayin, Ege University School of Dentistry
Anja Baraba, University of Zagreb
Matteo Basso, University of Milan, Galeazzi Orthopaedic Institute
Marta Giovannardi, University of Milano
Dejan Marcovic, School of Dental Medicine, University of Belgrade
Tamara Peric, School of Dental Medicine, University of Belgrade
Ivana Miletic, University of Zagreb


Objectives: The aim of this multi-center split-mouth study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a bulk fill glass hybrid material in comparison to a resin composite after one year.

Methods: One hundred eighty patients (Croatia (n=60), Turkey (n=60), Italy (n=30), Serbia (n=30)) having two moderate or large size Class II restorations/caries lesions were included in the study.
A total of 360 cavities were randomly restored with either Equia Forte (GC Corp, Japan, n=180) or Tetric EvoCeram (Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein, n=180) in a split-mouth design.
After cavity preparation following conventional procedures, the teeth were restored using sectional matrices and one of the tested materials. In the glass hybrid group, a cavity conditioner (GC) was used before the bulk-fill placement of Equia Forte Fil. After hardening of the material, Equia Forte Coat (GC) was applied. In the composite group, an adhesive system (AdheSE, Ivoclar Vivadent) was used before incremental placement of Tetric EvoCeram.
Standard digital photographs were taken before, at baseline and at 1-year recall. The restorations were evaluated by two independent, experimented and e-calibrated clinicians according to the FDI criteria. For that purpose, aesthetic, functional and biological properties were evaluated.
McNemar test was used to compare the baseline with the 1-year scores and Cochran Q test was used to evaluate the differences between centers. The significance level was set at 0.05.

Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the restorative materials regarding aesthetic, functional and biological properties (p>0.05). Furthermore, there were no differences between the FDI criteria at baseline and at 1-year recall in any of the centers (p>0.05).

Conclusions: Equia Forte and Tetric EvoCeram were equally successful in moderate to large size Class II restorations after 1-year clinical evaluation.

This study was supported by a grant of University of Zagreb, Croatia.

Disclosure Statement:
The submitter must disclose the names of the organizations with which any author have a relationship, the nature of the relationship, and the clinical or research area involved. The following is submitted: NONE