Three-year clinical performance of direct restorations using low-shrinkage Giomer vs. nano-hybrid resin composite

Objectives The objective of this investigation was to compare the clinical performances of nanohybrid and low-shrinkage bioactive resin composites. Materials and methods Totally, 35 pairs of restorations performed with either low-shrinkage bioactive Giomer (Beautifil II LS, Shofu Inc.) or nanohybrid (Clearfil Majesty Posterior) resin composites in 35 patients by two operators using the relevant adhesives: FL-Bond II (Shofu Inc) and Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray), according to each manufacturer’s instructions. Two clinicians assessed the restorations two weeks after restorative procedures (baseline), after six months, one, two and three years using FDI criteria (Scores 1–5). Data were analyzed using the marginal homogeneity and the McNemar test. Survival Rate was calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the survival of the two groups was compared with the Log-Rank test (p = 0.05). Results Mean observation period was 37.7 ± 6.8 months. All restorations completed their 3-years follow up. All criteria were rated mainly with high (1 or 2) scores for quality in both groups. Only one restoration from low-shrinkage Giomer restorative group was accepted as failure due to retention loss of the restorative. Conclusion Over the three-year follow-up, both the Giomer and the nanohybrid resin composite restorations’ performances were similar and clinically acceptable. Clinical relevance Low-shrinkage bioactive material Giomer resin composite exhibited similar clinical performance to the nanohybrid resin composite after three years in service, with both materials displaying minor surface deteriorations at three-year recall. Trial registration Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT02823769.