One-Year Clinical Comparison of Two Posterior Composite Resins

The aim of this study was to compare a one-year clinical performance of two composites (Ariston PHC with Tetric) in class II cavity preparations. Ninety-six class I and II modified cavity preparations in identical patients were prepared. Metallic matrix was used for restoration of class II preparations. Ariston PHC and Tetric were used for restorations. The clinical criteria consisted of post-operative sensitivity, marginal discoloration, recurrent caries and marginal adaptation that were evaluated after one year. The Fisher’s exact test, t-test and Chi-square Pearson were used for analysis of data (P≤0.05). There was no significant difference between the two composites regarding post-operative sensitivity and marginal adaptation. Marginal discoloration by Ariston PHC was significantly less than Tetric. Most of this marginal discoloration was observed in proximal margins of class II restorations. There were only two recurrent caries (5.1%) in cervical margins of Tetric restorations.The maxilla and mandible did not have a significant effect on clinical criteria. There was no significant difference in post-operative sensitivity between the two composites. Marginal discoloration using Ariston PHC was significantly less than that of Tetric. No significant failure was observed when using any of the composites.