Sonic activated VS Flowable bulk fill composites in permanent posterior teeth. (Comparative clinical study)

Objectives: The aim of this split-mouth randomized clinical study is to compare the results of 12 months' clinical performance of permanent molar Class I restored with a high viscosity bulk fill sonic activated composite, Sonic fill 3 (Kerr) with a flowable bulk-fill material, Palfique bulk flow (Tokuyama Dental). Materials and methods: Following the ethical approval, 25 patients with at least two class I cavities in permanent lower molars were included in the study. A total number of 50 restorations were conducted (n = 25 for SonicFill 3 and n = 25 for Palfique bulk flow). Restorations were evaluated at baseline (1 week), 6, and 12 months, according to the modified USPHS criteria. Results: The data were analysed using a commercially available software program (SPSS Chicago, IL, USA). Qualitative data were presented as frequencies (n) and percentages (%). The Chi-square test was used to compare the two groups. No statistically significant differences were found between the scores of teeth restored with the two materials. At baseline (1 week), 6, and 12 months of follow-up; there was no significant difference in the clinical status of both groups of restorations. Conclusion: Restorations with both materials (SonicFill 3 and Palfique bulk flow) have proved good clinical performance after 12 months follow-up periods.