
==== Front
Odontology
Odontology
Odontology
1618-1247
1618-1255
Springer Nature Singapore Singapore

38393515
905
10.1007/s10266-024-00905-5
Original Article
Clinical evaluation of posterior flowable short fiber-reinforced composite restorations without proximal surface coverage
ElAziz Rawda H. Abd 1
ElAziz Sherifa A. Abd 1
ElAziz Possy M. Abd 1
Frater Mark 2
Vallittu Pekka K. 34
Lassila Lippo 3
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9457-2314
Garoushi Sufyan sufgar@utu.fi

3
1 https://ror.org/03q21mh05 grid.7776.1 0000 0004 0639 9286 Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
2 https://ror.org/01pnej532 grid.9008.1 0000 0001 1016 9625 Department of Operative and Esthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
3 https://ror.org/05vghhr25 grid.1374.1 0000 0001 2097 1371 Department of Biomaterials Science and Turku Clinical Biomaterials Center–TCBC, Institute of Dentistry, University of Turku, Itäinen Pitkäkatu 4B, 20520 Turku, Finland
4 Wellbeing Services County of South-West Finland, Turku, Finland
23 2 2024
23 2 2024
2024
112 4 12741283
29 9 2023
11 1 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
The purpose of this clinical trail was to assess the clinical behavior of posterior composite restorations supported by a substantial foundation of flowable short fiber-reinforced composite SFRC (everX Flow, GC, Japan) used without proximal surface coverage with particulate filler resin composite (PFC). Seventy patients (20 males, 50 females; mean age: 30 ± 10 years) were randomly enrolled in this trial. Patients received direct restorations of either SFRC covered only on the occlusal surface (1–2 mm) by conventional PFC composite (G-ænial Posterior, GC), or plain conventional PFC composite without fiber-reinforcement, in Class II cavities in premolar and molar vital teeth. One operator made all restorations using one-step, self-etch bonding agent (G-ænial Bond, GC) according to manufacturers’ recommendations. Two blinded trained operators evaluated the restorations at baseline, at 6, 12 and 18 months using modified USPHS criteria. Results indicated that, in both groups and at different follow-up intervals, according to evaluated criteria, restorations were rated mostly with best score (Alpha) (p > 0.05). For the marginal integrity after 6 months, a single case in the intervention [increased to 3 (8.8%) after 18 months] and 3 (9.7%) cases of the control group [increased to 4 (12.9%) after 18 months] had Bravo score but with no significant difference (p > 0.05). For color match measured after 6 and 18 months, three (8.8%) cases had Bravo score in the intervention group. The use of flowable SFRC composite without any PFC surface coverage proximally in Class II restorations demonstrated satisfactory clinical outcome throughout the 18-month follow-up.

Keywords

Short fiber-reinforced composites
Randomized clinical study
EverX flow
Class II
University of Turku (including Turku University Central Hospital)Open Access funding provided by University of Turku (including Turku University Central Hospital).

issue-copyright-statement© The Society of The Nippon Dental University 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Nowadays the direct use of conventional particulate filler composite (PFC) is a common conservative and economic approach to restore missing tooth structures. They benefit from having a natural shade, cost less than indirect cast gold and ceramic restorations, and can adhere to enamel and dentin through bonding procedures [1]. Patient and clinician demands for natural esthetics have increased, which has resulted in the increased use of composites even in posterior teeth, where significant loading challenges arise during function [2–5]. Their application has expanded to include extra-coronal restorations as well as posterior intra-coronal restorations [2, 4].

To withstand mechanical challenges during function, modification of filler particle morphology and size led to enhanced mechanical properties [1, 6]. However, the literature shows that modern PFC composites still have drawbacks when utilized in large restorations because of their brittleness and lack of toughness [3, 7]. Owing to these limitations, there is ongoing debate regarding applying PFC composites in significant high load-bearing situations, such as direct posterior restorations in weakened coronal cavities or core build-ups [8]. The demand to enhance restorative composite has resulted in growing interest in strengthening methods. Various methods have been proposed to maintain the structural integrity of residual enamel and dentin and enhance the lifespan of large composite restorations [9]. Among them one option is using discontinuous or short flowable fiber-reinforced composites (SFRCs) to replace dentin and conventional PFC composite to replace enamel, known as a biomimetic restorative approach [10, 11]. High fracture toughness restorative materials are in high demand because they are less likely to fracture and be at risk for crack propagation. Many authors have stated that flowable SFRC (everX Flow, GC, Japan) has substantially improved mechanical features, especially in the context of fracture toughness compared to PFC composites [12–16]. According to the literature, the reinforcing capability of SFRC increased with increasing the volume of the material. Some researchers have even extended the application of SFRC beyond dentin restoration, encompassing the reconstruction of missing interproximal walls [17, 18]. This approach aims to deliver a more robust solution for the reconstructed interproximal wall when compared to conventional PFC. It is noteworthy that the manufacturer's guidelines recommend utilizing flowable SFRC primarily as a bulk base or core foundation, discouraging its use as a top surface layer.

The question arises as to why flowable SFRC (everX Flow) needs to be covered with another layer of PFC composite, even on proximal surfaces. This is despite the existence of numerous laboratory results demonstrating the favorable surface and wear characteristics of everX Flow in comparison to many commercial PFC composites [12, 19–22]. The in vitro data indicate that the use of flowable SFRC can be considered safe when exposed to the oral environment. However, there is a lack of clinical evidence to substantiate this suggestion. As a result, the goal of the current clinical trial was to investigate the clinical efficacy of posterior composite restorations reinforced by a bulk layer of flowable SFRC without proximal surface coverage. The tested null hypothesis was that SFRC in building proximal walls of Class II restorations would perform similarly to PFC restorations in terms of clinical outcomes.

Materials and methods

Trial design and settings

The trial was designed as a double-blinded study, involving both assessors and patients, and was conducted as a randomized control clinical study with two parallel simultaneous groups, each with an equal allocation ratio. The trail protocol was officially reported on ClinicalTrials.gov under the ID number NCT04720638. The trial took place at the Conservative Dentistry outpatient clinic of the Faculty of Dentistry at Cairo University, Egypt, spanning from March 2021 to December 2022. The reporting of this trial followed the guidelines established by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). Furthermore, this trial received approval from the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Dentistry at Cairo University, with an ID number of (13/11/20). All participants were instructed about the trial's objectives and procedures, and their participation was confirmed through informed consent, which they provided by signing the forms.

Eligibility criteria

Patients included in this study were 18–55 years old with good oral hygiene and presenting with at least one upper or lower vital posterior tooth with compound proximal carious cavity. The selected tooth should be in favorable occlusion and normal contact with the adjacent teeth. The exclusion criteria were patients with compromised medical health, pregnant women, known allergy to any material used in the trial, signs and symptoms of irreversible pulpitis or necrosis or any other pulp pathologies and previous restoration or severe periodontal problems in the selected tooth.

Sample size calculation

Based on the findings from a prior clinical trail [23], a power analysis was devised to facilitate the application of a two-sided statistical test aimed at assessing the null hypothesis. By setting the Alpha (α) level at 0.05 (5%) and the beta (β) level at 0.20 (20%), thus ensuring a statistical power of 80%, and by determining an effect size (W) of 0.400, the projected sample size (n) was computed to encompass a total of 60 cases. In anticipation of potential dropouts, this number was subsequently increased by 15%, resulting in a final total of 70 cases, which corresponds to 35 cases per group. The calculations for sample size were conducted utilizing G*Power version 3.1.9.4 (citation may be needed https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03193146), a widely recognized software tool for statistical analysis.

Randomization and concealment of allocation

The process of randomization was executed utilizing a straightforward approach overseen by a contributor who maintained no further involvement in subsequent trial phases. A total of seventy random numbers were generated employing the Random Sequence Generator (https://www.random.org/). This list of random numbers was then sealed securely within an opaque envelope. Access to this list was restricted exclusively to the operator, who could only open the envelope at the precise moment of applying the composite filling material, subsequent to the completion of the adhesive protocol. Both the two assessors responsible for evaluating trial outcomes and the patients remained unaware of the specific restorative material employed, ensuring a double-blind setup. Blinding of the operator was not applicable due to variances in the techniques of application required for the different materials.

Interventions: restorative treatment

A single trained operator performed all the restorations. All patients received local anesthesia (Artinibsa 4% 1:100.000, Inibsa Dental, Spain). Multiple teeth isolation was done using a rubber dam (Sanctuary® powder free latex dental dam, Malaysia). Preparation of all cavities was applied using # 245 and # 1, 2 round carbide burs with an air/water-cooled high speed handpiece with the aid of a sharp excavator in accordance with the cavity preparation principles for adhesive composite restorations and the recent clinical recommendations for caries excavation.

For the restorative procedures, first, the lost proximal wall was replaced using an appropriate pre-contoured sectional matrix complemented by the corresponding separating ring (TOR VM, Russia) and an appropriately dimensioned wooden wedge (Fig. 1). The prepared cavity was cleansed by applying a thorough water rinse then application of the bonding protocol. All teeth in both groups received the same adhesive protocol. A selective enamel etching approach was made by applying 37% phosphoric acid gel (Scotchbond, 3M ESPE, USA) for a duration of 15 s. Subsequently, the tooth underwent a 15 s rinsing procedure with water and was gently dried using brief air blasts and cotton pellet blotting. A one-step self-etch bonding agent application (G-ænial Bond, GC) involved a thorough and careful process where a disposable microbrush was used to gently spread the bonding agent over the surfaces of the prepared cavity. Following this application, it was left for a period of 10 s before being exposed to the highest air pressure for 5 s. Subsequently, the light-curing procedure was performed utilizing an LED light-curing unit with an intensity surpassing 700 mW/cm2 (LED.F, Woodpecker, China) for a total time span of 10 s.Fig. 1 (A) Preoperative view; (B) after removal of the old restoration; (C) interproximal walls were built by flowable SFRC; (D) post-operative view

In the intervention group, flowable SFRC (everX Flow) was injected as dentin replacement including the proximal wall (Fig. 1) leaving about 1–2 mm of space for an occlusal surface layer of the conventional PFC. SFRC was subjected to light curing for 20 s. A capping or surface layer of the conventional micro-hybrid PFC (G-ænial Posterior, GC) was applied and underwent light curing for a period of 20 s as well.

While for the control group, the cavities were completely filled with conventional PFC, using an oblique 2 mm incremental layering technique, and each increment subjected to light curing separately for 20 s.

After checking centric and eccentric occlusion by an articulating paper, restoration finishing was done, using fine grit bud-shaped diamond stones (Microdont, Brazil) then polishing by rubber points and bristle brushes with ultrafine Microdont diamond paste (Microdont). All the used materials and their specification are mentioned in Table 1.Table 1 Material descriptions and specifications

Product	Specifications	Composition		
G-ænial Posterior (A2&A3)	Micro-hybrid conventional composite (PFC)	Resin Matrix: UDMA and other dimethacrylates co-monomers

Filler: Pre-polymerized silica fillers, pre-polymerized silica and strontium fluoride containing fillers 81 wt%

		
EverX Flow (Bulk and Dentin)	Short fiber-reinforced composite (SFRC)	Bis-EMA, TEGDMA, UDMA, micrometer scale glass fiber filler, Barium glass 70 wt%		
G-ænial Bond	One-component self-etching light-cured adhesive	HEMA-free, 4-MET, UDMA, TEGDMA, phosphoric acid monomer, acetone, water, silanated colloidal silica, initiator		
UDMA, urethane dimethacrylate, TEGDMA, triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, Bis-EMA Ethoxylated bisphenol-A-dimethacrylate, HEMA 2 hydroxyethyl methacrylate, 4-MET 4-methacryloyloxyethyl trimellitate, wt% weight percentage

Clinical evaluation

Restoration evaluation was performed by two blinded outcome investigators using modified USPHS criteria (Table 2). The examiners were trained on the modified USPHS criteria before starting the trial and calibrated to at least a kappa value of 90% per each criteria for inter- and intra-examiner agreement. The assessments of the restorations were conducted at baseline, 6-month, 12-month, and 18-month intervals. Any discrepancies in the scores were resolved through discussion.Table 2 Modified USPHS criteria

Criterion	Score	Description	Measuring method	
Post-operative

Hypersensitivity

	Alpha	Absent	Controlled air blasting at a 2 cm distance from the restoration	
Charlie	Present	
Secondary caries	Alpha	No caries present along the margins	Visual inspection with mirror	
Charlie	There is visual evidence of dark carious discoloration along the restoration	
Gross fracture	Alpha	Restoration is intact and fully retained	Visual inspection with mirror	
Bravo	some portion of the restoration is still intact and can be repaired	
Charlie	Restoration is completely fractured	
Color match	Alpha	The restoration matches the shade and translucency of the adjacent tooth	Visual inspection with mirror	
Bravo	There is a mismatch in the shade and translucency, but it is within the normal range of tooth shade	
Charlie	The mismatch is beyond the normal range of the tooth shades and translucency	
Cavo-surface marginal discoloration	Alpha	There is no visual evidence of any marginal discoloration at the junction of the restoration and the adjacent tooth structure	Visual inspection

with mirror

	
Bravo	There is visual evidence of shallow marginal discoloration	
Charlie	There is visual evidence of deep marginal discoloration toward a pulpal direction	
Marginal integrity	Alpha	The explorer does not catch and there is no visible crevice along the margin of the restoration	Visual inspection with mirror and explorer	
Bravo	The explorer catches and there is visible evidence of a crevice but the dentin or the base are not exposed	
Charlie	There is crevice defect extended to the dentin	
Anatomic contour

(wear)

	Alpha	The restoration is continued with the existing anatomic form or slightly flattened	Visual inspection with mirror and explorer	
Bravo	A surface concavity is present. But the dentin or the base is not exposed	
Charlie	A surface concavity is present and the base and/or the dentin is exposed	
Surface texture	Alpha	Surface texture is similar to the adjacent enamel	Explorer	
Bravo	Surface texture is rougher than the adjacent enamel	
Proximal contact	Alpha	Resistance met when passing floss	Dental floss	
Bravo	Floss passed without resistance but contact present	
Charlie	No contact with adjacent tooth	

Statistical analysis

Numerical (age) data were expressed as mean values along with standard deviations (SD) and assessed for normality through the Shapiro–Wilk test, which confirmed their adherence to a normal distribution. Subsequently, independent t tests were employed for comparisons. Categorical and ordinal data were presented as percentages and frequencies. Chi-square tests were utilized for the analysis of categorical (gender and treated teeth) data, such as gender and treated teeth. For ordinal data, specifically USPHS scores, intergroup comparisons were conducted using the Mann–Whitney U test, while intragroup comparisons employed the Friedman’s test, followed by the Nemenyi post hoc test. A significance threshold of p < 0.05 was applied to all tests. The statistical analysis was executed using R statistical analysis software, version 4.1.3.

Results

This trail was carried on seventy cases that were randomly and equally assigned to each of the tested groups (i.e., 35 cases each). Thirty-four patients in the intervention group completed the trial while for the control group only thirty-one completed. This loss in follow-up was due to patients not replying to phone calls and one case discontinued the trial due to development of irreversible pulpitis (Fig. 2).Fig. 2 Flowchart of the study

There were 13 (37.1%) males in the intervention group and 22 (62.9%) females, while in the control group, there were seven (20.0%) males and 28 (80.0%) females. The mean age of the cases in the intervention group was (31.51 ± 12.65) years, and in the control group, it was (29.63 ± 9.00) years. A majority of the treated teeth in the intervention group were first molars 15 (42.9%), while in the control group, they were mostly second premolars 14 (40.0%). There were no notable distinctions between the two groups in terms of various demographic data and baseline characteristics (p > 0.05) (Table 3).Table 3 Inter-group comparison of demographic data and baseline characteristics

Parameter	Intervention	Control	p-value	
Gender				
 Male				
  n	13	7	0.112	
  %	37.1%	20.0%	
 Female			
  n	22	28	
  %	62.9%	80.0%	
Age (years)				
Mean ± SD	31.51 ± 12.65	29.63 ± 9.00	0.499	
Treated tooth				
 First premolar				
  N	6	10	0.323	
  %	17.1%	28.6%	
 Second premolar			
  N	12	14	
  %	34.3%	40.0%	
 First molar			
  N	15	8	
  %	42.9%	22.9%	
 Second molar			
  N	2	3	
  %	5.7%	8.6%	

For the marginal integrity after 6 months, a single case in the intervention (increased to 3 (8.8%) after 18 months) and three (9.7%) cases of the control group (increased to 4 (12.9%) after 18 months) had Bravo score. At all intervals, there was no significant difference between both groups (p > 0.05). For the intragroup comparison, there was a significant difference between scores measured at different intervals in the control group with baseline values being significantly different from values measured after 18 months (p = 0.039). For other parameters, there was no significant difference between different intervals (p > 0.05).

For color match measured after 6 and 18 months, three (8.8%) cases had Bravo score in the intervention group (Fig. 3), while regarding marginal discoloration, a single case in the intervention had Bravo score after 18 months.Fig. 3 Intervention SFRC (A; Bravo score in color match) and control conventional PFC (B; alpha-score in color match) restorations in the mesial of upper first molar after 18 months

When post-operative hypersensitivity, gross fractures, secondary caries, proximal contact, anatomical contour (wear), and surface texture were assessed, every case in both groups observed at various follow-up intervals received an Alpha score (Table 4). It is also important to highlight that there were no signs of gingival irritation or inflammation around the restorations in both the control and intervention groups.Table 4 Inter- and intragroup comparisons of modified USPHS criteria

Parameter	Score	Baseline	6 months	18 months	p-value	
Intervention	Control	Intervention	Control	Intervention	Control	
n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	Intervention	Control	
Post-operative hypersensitivity/secondary caries	Alpha	35	100.0%	35	100.0%	34	100.0%	31	100.0%	34	100.0%	31	100.0%	NA	NA	
Charlie	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	
p-value	NA	NA	NA			
Gross fracture/proximal contact/anatomic contour (wear)/surface texture	Alpha	35	100.0%	35	100.0%	34	100.0%	31	100.0%	34	100.0%	31	100.0%	NA	NA	
Bravo	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	
Charlie	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	
p-value	NA	NA	NA			
Color match	Alpha	35	100.0%	35	100.0%	31	91.2%	31	100.0%	31	91.2%	31	100.0%	0.051	NA	
Bravo	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	3	8.8%	0	0.0%	3	8.8%	0	0.0%	
Charlie	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	
p-value	NA	0.096	0.096			
Cavo-surface marginal discoloration	Alpha	35	100.0%	35	100.0%	34	100.0%	31	100.0%	33	97.1%	31	100.0%	0.368	NA	
Bravo	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	1	2.9%	0	0.0%	
Charlie	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	
p-value	NA	NA	0.355			
Marginal integrity	Alpha	35	100.0%	35A	100.0%	33	97.1%	28AB	90.3%	31	91.2%	27B	87.1%	0.097	0.039*	
Bravo	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	1	2.9%	3	9.7%	3	8.8%	4	12.9%	
Charlie	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%	
p-value	NA	0.269	0.608			
Values with different superscript letters within the same horizontal row and group are significantly different *significant (p < 0.05), NA Not applicable

Discussion

One of the recent innovations in restorative dentistry is the introduction of flowable SFRC composite (everX Flow) for reinforcing posterior teeth. Comparative research in the literature has demonstrated that everX Flow exhibits unique characteristics, composition, and strengthening capabilities when compared to both conventional and SFRC composites [15, 24].

While numerous laboratory studies have been carried out to assess the surface characteristics of this recently presented restorative material, their results may not consistently replicate real clinical behavior. Hence, conducting clinical studies remains the most reliable method for predicting its actual performance when exposed to the oral environment. Only two short-term clinical studies involving the application of everX Flow have been published recently [25, 26]. In these studies, the material was compared either to packable SFRC (everX Posterior, GC Europe) or to glass hybrid (Equia Forte® HT, GC Europe) materials. The clinical performance of everX Flow restorations proved to be comparable with packable SFRC, and more successful than glass hybrid restorations in terms of retention. However, everX Flow was used as a dentin replacing material and was not exposed to the oral environment. As far as we are aware, this is the first clinical trail investigating the clinical performance of flowable SFRC reinforced Class II direct restorations where interproximal walls were built using SFRC and without PFC surface coverage. Therefore, the clinical success of SFRC Class II composite restorations cannot be compared with the literature. The tested restorative approach performed similarly to conventional PFC restorations in all parameters throughout the course of the 18-month testing time frame, thereby confirming the hypothesis.

EverX Flow was introduced in 2019 as the flowable version of packable SFRC (everX Posterior) manufactured by the same company (GC, Japan). It is made up of an inorganic silanated particle filler (45 wt%), a resin matrix (30 wt%), and randomly oriented glass microfibers (25 wt%). The diameter of the used glass microfibers is 6 µm and the length between 200 and 300 µm [20]. By comparison, everX Posterior has fiber of 17 μm in diameter and length in the range of 0.3–1.5 mm [15, 20]. Hence, it is unsurprising that everX Flow exhibits superior surface properties when compared to everX Posterior [15]. However, the official manufacturer’s instruction remains to cover everX Flow always from proximal and occlusal surfaces with a layer of conventional PFC composite.

When compared to other conventional and bulk-fill PFCs, laboratory studies on flowable SFRC revealed good wear resistance characteristics [20, 21, 27]. Within the mentioned research, the microfibers of the flowable SFRC did not protrude; instead, they were polished in the resin matrix, resulting in often a uniformly smooth surface. In another studies by Lassila et al., and Uctasli et al., flowable SFRC showed surface gloss values and color stability which was comparable to other tested conventional PFC and fluoride-releasing composites [19, 22]. These studies reported that polished surfaces of flowable SFRC was smooth compared to those where PFC composites were used. In accordance with these laboratory findings, all SFRC and PFC restorations assessed in this clinical trial scored Alpha for proximal contact, anatomic contour (wear) and surface texture (Table 4).

In the present study, by the conclusion of the 18-month monitoring time, three SFRC restorations (8.8%) had Bravo score (clinically acceptable) for color match, while regarding marginal discoloration, a single case in the intervention had also Bravo score. This outcome can be attributed to the use of the bulk shade translucent color of everX Flow, since the residual layer of the surface PFC composite (G-ænial Posterior) was thin after occlusal adjustment. Subsequently, a thin layer of PFC proved insufficient to mask the dark color of any potential leftover amalgam tattoo or dark sclerotic dentin (Fig. 2).

The degree of monomer conversion (DC%), the level of water sorption, and the hydrophilicity of the resin matrix can all have an impact on a composite's discoloration resistance [22, 28]. A higher DC% indicates a lower amount of unreacted monomers, reduced water uptake, and enhanced color stability. Based on the available literature [20, 29], it has been reported that G-ænial Posterior has a lower DC% (48) compared to everX Flow (63). This difference in DC% may account for the good color stability of SFRC. It is thought that water acts as a conduit for stains to enter the resin matrix [30]. The particulate fillers or fibers incorporated within the composites do not exhibit water absorption into the material's core; however, they can absorb water at their surface. In addition, the shade of the composite is another aspect influencing composite staining. Darker shades (dentin shade) generally exhibit improved color matching capabilities owing to the existence of pigments.

From our results, though significant difference was not detected, three SFRC and four PFC restorations scored Bravo for marginal integrity after the follow-up period. It has been claimed that polymerization shrinkage and stress represent the principal contributors to insufficient marginal adaptation. In fact, comparing monomers used in PFC and SFRC composites, TEGDMA, which has low molecular weight and viscosity, can produce high shrinkage stresses [31]. This effect is due to the increased reactivity of this monomer, which causes high conversion and therefore high shrinkage. Nevertheless, recent studies in the literature have indicated that utilizing SFRC for restoring large cavities results in fewer polymerization shrinkage-related cracks compared to layered conventional PFC composites [14, 32]. This observation appears to have a direct clinical significance.

It is also worth noting that Lassila et al., in their investigation of Streptococcus mutans adhesion, demonstrated that the SFRC material exhibited a level of Streptococcus mutans adhesion similar to that of commercial PFC composites [33]. Furthermore, Attik et al. demonstrated that everX Flow had a less detrimental effect on the viability of primary gingival cells compared to other tested bulk-fill PFC composites [12]. Consistently, none of the restorations in this study exhibited specific signs of soft tissue irritation or plaque accumulation.

Although the manufacturer recommends using everX Flow exclusively to substitute missing dentin for direct and indirect restorations, and avoiding exposure to the oral environment, the study’s findings suggest that flowable SFRC could potentially be utilized safely across a wider range of applications. However, it is necessary to conduct clinical trails with larger sample sizes and extended follow-up to obtain more reliable and conclusive findings.

Conclusion

The application of flowable short fiber-reinforced composite, without proximal surface coverage by conventional micro-hybrid composite in Class II restorations, yielded satisfactory clinical outcomes throughout the 18-month follow-up, as assessed by the modified USPHS criteria.

BioCity Turku Biomaterials Research Program, Bolyai János Research Scholarship, and ÚNKP-22-5-SZTE New National Excellence Program.

Funding

Open Access funding provided by University of Turku (including Turku University Central Hospital).

Data availability

Data available within the article.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

Author PK declares that he consults Stick Tech—Member of GC in training and RD. All other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rawda H. Abd ElAziz and Sufyan Garoushi contributed equally to this work.
==== Refs
References

1. Ferracane JL Resin composites-State of art Dent Mater 2010 27 29 38 10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.020 21093034
Ferracane JL. Resin composites-State of art. Dent Mater. 2010;27:29–38.21093034
2. da Veiga AM Cunha AC Ferreira DM da Silva Fidalgo TK Chianca TK Reis KR Maia LC Longevity of direct and indirect resin composite restorations in permanent posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis J Dent 2016 54 1 12 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.08.003 27523636
da Veiga AM, Cunha AC, Ferreira DM, da Silva Fidalgo TK, Chianca TK, Reis KR, Maia LC. Longevity of direct and indirect resin composite restorations in permanent posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2016;54:1–12.27523636
3. Heintze SD Loguercio AD Hanzen TA Reis A Rousson V Clinical efficacy of resin-based direct posterior restorations and glass-ionomer restorations—an updated meta-analysis of clinical outcome parameters Dent Mater 2022 38 e109 e135 10.1016/j.dental.2021.10.018 35221127
Heintze SD, Loguercio AD, Hanzen TA, Reis A, Rousson V. Clinical efficacy of resin-based direct posterior restorations and glass-ionomer restorations—an updated meta-analysis of clinical outcome parameters. Dent Mater. 2022;38:e109–35.35221127
4. Josic U D'Alessandro C Miletic V Maravic T Mazzitelli C Jacimovic J Sorrentino R Zarone F Mancuso E Delgado AH Breschi L Mazzoni A Clinical longevity of direct and indirect posterior resin composite restorations: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis Dent Mater 2023 39 1085 1094 10.1016/j.dental.2023.10.009 37827872
Josic U, D’Alessandro C, Miletic V, Maravic T, Mazzitelli C, Jacimovic J, Sorrentino R, Zarone F, Mancuso E, Delgado AH, Breschi L, Mazzoni A. Clinical longevity of direct and indirect posterior resin composite restorations: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent Mater. 2023;39:1085–94.37827872
5. Loguercio AD Ñaupari-Villasante R Gutierrez MF Gonzalez MI Reis A Heintze SD 5-year clinical performance of posterior bulk-filled resin composite restorations: a double-blind randomized controlled trial Dent Mater 2023 39 1159 1168 10.1016/j.dental.2023.10.018 37839995
Loguercio AD, Ñaupari-Villasante R, Gutierrez MF, Gonzalez MI, Reis A, Heintze SD. 5-year clinical performance of posterior bulk-filled resin composite restorations: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Dent Mater. 2023;39:1159–68.37839995
6. Liu J Zhang H Sun H Liu Y Liu W Su B Li S The development of filler morphology in dental resin composites: a review Materials (Basel) 2021 14 5612 10.3390/ma14195612 34640020
Liu J, Zhang H, Sun H, Liu Y, Liu W, Su B, Li S. The development of filler morphology in dental resin composites: a review. Materials (Basel). 2021;14:5612.34640020
7. McGrath CE, Bonsor SJ. Survival of direct resin composite onlays and indirect tooth-coloured adhesive onlays in posterior teeth: a systematic review. Br Dent J 2022 Epub ahead of print.
8. Forster A Braunitzer G Tóth M Szabó BP Fráter M In vitro fracture resistance of adhesively restored molar teeth with different mod cavity dimensions J Prosthodont 2019 28 325 331 10.1111/jopr.12777
Forster A, Braunitzer G, Tóth M, Szabó BP, Fráter M. In vitro fracture resistance of adhesively restored molar teeth with different mod cavity dimensions. J Prosthodont. 2019;28:325–31.
9. Cho K Rajan G Farrar P Prentice L Prusty BG Dental resin composites: a review on materials to product realizations Compos B 2022 230 109495 10.1016/j.compositesb.2021.109495
Cho K, Rajan G, Farrar P, Prentice L, Prusty BG. Dental resin composites: a review on materials to product realizations. Compos B. 2022;230: 109495.
10. Garoushi S Gargoum A Vallittu PK Lassila L Short fiber-reinforced composite restorations: a review of the current literature J Investig Clin Dent 2018 9 12330 10.1111/jicd.12330
Garoushi S, Gargoum A, Vallittu PK, Lassila L. Short fiber-reinforced composite restorations: a review of the current literature. J Investig Clin Dent. 2018;9:12330.
11. Alshabib A Jurado CA Tsujimoto A Short fiber-reinforced resin-based composites (SFRCs); Current status and future perspectives Dent Mater J 2022 41 647 654 10.4012/dmj.2022-080 35858793
Alshabib A, Jurado CA, Tsujimoto A. Short fiber-reinforced resin-based composites (SFRCs); Current status and future perspectives. Dent Mater J. 2022;41:647–54.35858793
12. Attik N Colon P Gauthier R Chevalier C Grosgogeat B Abouelleil H Comparison of physical and biological properties of a flowable fiber reinforced and bulk filling composites Dent Mater 2022 38 19 30 10.1016/j.dental.2021.12.029 34774330
Attik N, Colon P, Gauthier R, Chevalier C, Grosgogeat B, Abouelleil H. Comparison of physical and biological properties of a flowable fiber reinforced and bulk filling composites. Dent Mater. 2022;38:19–30.34774330
13. Garoushi S Barlas D Vallittu PK Uctasli MB Lassila L Fracture behavior of short fiber-reinforced CAD/CAM inlay restorations after cyclic fatigue aging Odontology 2023 112 138 147 10.1007/s10266-023-00815-y 37097420
Garoushi S, Barlas D, Vallittu PK, Uctasli MB, Lassila L. Fracture behavior of short fiber-reinforced CAD/CAM inlay restorations after cyclic fatigue aging. Odontology. 2023;112:138–47.37097420
14. Magne P Milani T Short-fiber reinforced MOD restorations of molars with severely undermined Cusps J Adhes Dent 2023 25 99 106 37097055
Magne P, Milani T. Short-fiber reinforced MOD restorations of molars with severely undermined Cusps. J Adhes Dent. 2023;25:99–106.37097055
15. Lassila L Keulemans F Vallittu PK Garoushi S Characterization of restorative short-fiber reinforced dental composites Dent Mater J 2020 39 992 999 10.4012/dmj.2019-088 32779605
Lassila L, Keulemans F, Vallittu PK, Garoushi S. Characterization of restorative short-fiber reinforced dental composites. Dent Mater J. 2020;39:992–9.32779605
16. Bijelic-Donova J Garoushi S Lassila LV Rocca GT Vallittu PK Crack propagation and toughening mechanism of bilayered short-fiber reinforced resin composite structure—Evaluation up to six months storage in water Dent Mater J 2022 41 580 588 10.4012/dmj.2021-321 35584936
Bijelic-Donova J, Garoushi S, Lassila LV, Rocca GT, Vallittu PK. Crack propagation and toughening mechanism of bilayered short-fiber reinforced resin composite structure—Evaluation up to six months storage in water. Dent Mater J. 2022;41:580–8.35584936
17. Volom A Vincze-Bandi E Sáry T Alleman D Forster A Jakab A Braunitzer G Garoushi S Fráter M Fatigue performance of endodontically treated molars reinforced with different fiber systems Clin Oral Investig 2023 27 3211 3220 10.1007/s00784-023-04934-2 36862198
Volom A, Vincze-Bandi E, Sáry T, Alleman D, Forster A, Jakab A, Braunitzer G, Garoushi S, Fráter M. Fatigue performance of endodontically treated molars reinforced with different fiber systems. Clin Oral Investig. 2023;27:3211–20.36862198
18. Hosaka K Tichy A Hasegawa Y Motoyama Y Kanazawa M Tagami J Nakajima M Replacing mandibular central incisors with a direct resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis by using a bilayering composite resin injection technique with a digital workflow: a dental technique J Prosthet Dent 2021 126 150 154 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.05.007 32800576
Hosaka K, Tichy A, Hasegawa Y, Motoyama Y, Kanazawa M, Tagami J, Nakajima M. Replacing mandibular central incisors with a direct resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis by using a bilayering composite resin injection technique with a digital workflow: a dental technique. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;126:150–4.32800576
19. Lassila L Säilynoja E Prinssi R Vallittu PK Garoushi S The effect of polishing protocol on surface gloss of different restorative resin composites Biomater Investig Dent 2020 7 1 8 32010900
Lassila L, Säilynoja E, Prinssi R, Vallittu PK, Garoushi S. The effect of polishing protocol on surface gloss of different restorative resin composites. Biomater Investig Dent. 2020;7:1–8.32010900
20. Lassila L Säilynoja E Prinssi R Vallittu P Garoushi S Characterization of a new fiber-reinforced flowable composite Odontology 2019 107 342 352 10.1007/s10266-018-0405-y 30617664
Lassila L, Säilynoja E, Prinssi R, Vallittu P, Garoushi S. Characterization of a new fiber-reinforced flowable composite. Odontology. 2019;107:342–52.30617664
21. Lassila L Novotny R Säilynoja E Vallittu PK Garoushi S Wear behavior at margins of direct composite with CAD/CAM composite and enamel Clin Oral Investig 2023 27 2419 2426 10.1007/s00784-023-04883-w 36746817
Lassila L, Novotny R, Säilynoja E, Vallittu PK, Garoushi S. Wear behavior at margins of direct composite with CAD/CAM composite and enamel. Clin Oral Investig. 2023;27:2419–26.36746817
22. Uctasli MB Garoushi S Uctasli M Vallittu PK Lassila L A comparative assessment of color stability among various commercial resin composites BMC Oral Health 2023 23 789 10.1186/s12903-023-03515-9 37875872
Uctasli MB, Garoushi S, Uctasli M, Vallittu PK, Lassila L. A comparative assessment of color stability among various commercial resin composites. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23:789.37875872
23. Hirata-Tsuchiya S Yoshii S Ichimaru-Suematsu M Washio A Saito N Urata M Hanada K Morotomi T Kitamura C Two-year clinical comparison of a flowable-type nano-hybrid composite and a paste-type composite in posterior restoration J Investig Clin Dent 2017 8 e12227 10.1111/jicd.12227
Hirata-Tsuchiya S, Yoshii S, Ichimaru-Suematsu M, Washio A, Saito N, Urata M, Hanada K, Morotomi T, Kitamura C. Two-year clinical comparison of a flowable-type nano-hybrid composite and a paste-type composite in posterior restoration. J Investig Clin Dent. 2017;8: e12227.
24. Garoushi S Vallittu PK Lassila L Mechanical properties and wear of five commercial fiber-reinforced filling materials Chin J Dent Res 2017 20 137 143 28808697
Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Lassila L. Mechanical properties and wear of five commercial fiber-reinforced filling materials. Chin J Dent Res. 2017;20:137–43.28808697
25. Ranka S Rao AS Shah U Solanki D Pawar AM Reda R Zanza A Testarelli L Comparative evaluation of two different fiber-reinforced composite materials in class I post-endodontic restorations in molars-a randomized clinical study Materials (Basel) 2022 15 7858 10.3390/ma15217858 36363448
Ranka S, Rao AS, Shah U, Solanki D, Pawar AM, Reda R, Zanza A, Testarelli L. Comparative evaluation of two different fiber-reinforced composite materials in class I post-endodontic restorations in molars-a randomized clinical study. Materials (Basel). 2022;15:7858.36363448
26. Kaya R Yavuz BŞE Dokumacıgil NK Kargül B A randomized clinical trial of short fiber reinforced composite and glass hybrid restoration for molars affected by molar hypomineralization Pediatr Dent 2023 45 292 300 37605356
Kaya R, Yavuz BŞE, Dokumacıgil NK, Kargül B. A randomized clinical trial of short fiber reinforced composite and glass hybrid restoration for molars affected by molar hypomineralization. Pediatr Dent. 2023;45:292–300.37605356
27. Mangoush E Lassila L Vallittu PK Garoushi S Microstructure and surface characteristics of short- fiber reinforced CAD/CAM composite blocks Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2021 29 3 12815
Mangoush E, Lassila L, Vallittu PK, Garoushi S. Microstructure and surface characteristics of short- fiber reinforced CAD/CAM composite blocks. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2021;29(3):12815.
28. Bagheri R Burrow MF Tyas M Influence of food-simulating solutions and surface finish on susceptibility to staining of aesthetic restorative materials J Dent 2005 33 389 398 10.1016/j.jdent.2004.10.018 15833394
Bagheri R, Burrow MF, Tyas M. Influence of food-simulating solutions and surface finish on susceptibility to staining of aesthetic restorative materials. J Dent. 2005;33:389–98.15833394
29. Süsgün Yıldırım Z Eyiler E Bek Kürklü ZG Effect of thickness on the degree of conversion, monomer elution, depth of cure and cytotoxicity of bulk-fill composites J Oral Sci 2023 65 121 126 10.2334/josnusd.22-0374 36990756
Süsgün Yıldırım Z, Eyiler E, Bek Kürklü ZG. Effect of thickness on the degree of conversion, monomer elution, depth of cure and cytotoxicity of bulk-fill composites. J Oral Sci. 2023;65:121–6.36990756
30. Lopes-Rocha L Mendes JM Garcez J Sá AG Pinho T Souza JCM Torres O The effect of different dietary and therapeutic solutions on the color stability of resin-matrix composites used in dentistry: an in vitro study Materials (Basel) 2021 14 6267 10.3390/ma14216267 34771792
Lopes-Rocha L, Mendes JM, Garcez J, Sá AG, Pinho T, Souza JCM, Torres O. The effect of different dietary and therapeutic solutions on the color stability of resin-matrix composites used in dentistry: an in vitro study. Materials (Basel). 2021;14:6267.34771792
31. Münchow EA Meereis CTW de Oliveira da Rosa WL daSilva AF Piva E Polymerization shrinkage stress of resin-based dental materials: a systematic review and meta-analyses of technique protocol and photo-activation strategies J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2018 82 77 86 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.03.004 29573737
Münchow EA, Meereis CTW, de Oliveira da Rosa WL, daSilva AF, Piva E. Polymerization shrinkage stress of resin-based dental materials: a systematic review and meta-analyses of technique protocol and photo-activation strategies. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018;82:77–86.29573737
32. Néma V Sáry T Szántó FL Szabó B Braunitzer G Lassila L Garoushi S Lempel E Fráter M Crack propensity of different direct restorative procedures in deep MOD cavities Clin Oral Investig 2023 27 2003 2011 10.1007/s00784-023-04927-1 36814029
Néma V, Sáry T, Szántó FL, Szabó B, Braunitzer G, Lassila L, Garoushi S, Lempel E, Fráter M. Crack propensity of different direct restorative procedures in deep MOD cavities. Clin Oral Investig. 2023;27:2003–11.36814029
33. Lassila L Garoushi S Tanner J Vallittu PK Söderling E Adherence of Streptococcus mutans to Fiber-Reinforced filling composite and conventional restorative materials Open Dent J 2009 3 227 232 10.2174/1874210600903010227 20148170
Lassila L, Garoushi S, Tanner J, Vallittu PK, Söderling E. Adherence of Streptococcus mutans to Fiber-Reinforced filling composite and conventional restorative materials. Open Dent J. 2009;3:227–32.20148170
