Bayraktar, YusufErcan, ErtugrulHamidi, Mehmet MustafaColak, Hakan2020-06-252020-06-252017closedAccess2041-16182041-1626https://doi.org/10.1111/jicd.12210https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12587/6981Colak, Hakan/0000-0001-8262-0913; Bayraktar, Yusuf/0000-0001-6250-5651; Hamidi, Mehmet Mustafa/0000-0003-3461-7925; ERCAN, Ertugrul/0000-0002-4753-6553Aim: In the present study, we evaluated the 1-year clinical performance of a conventional posterior composite resin and three bulk-fill composite resins. Methods: Fifty patients with four class II restorations under occlusion were enrolled in the present study. A total of 200 restorations were placed in the cavity, 50 for each material (Clearfil Photo Posterior, Filtek Bulk-Fill Flowable and Filtek P60, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk-Fill, and SonicFill). One operator placed the restorations in the cavity, and 1 week later the patients were called for baseline examination. Two calibrated examiners evaluated the restorations once every 3 months for 1 year, according to United States Public Health Service criteria. The data were analyzed using SPSS. Non-parametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U-test, and Friedman) were used for the analysis at a confidence level of 95%. Results: The 1-year recall rate was 86%. All restorations showed minor modifications after 1 year. However, no statistically-significant differences were detected between the materials' performance at baseline and after 1 year for all criteria (P > 0.05). Conclusions: The bulk-fill composite resin materials showed similar clinical performance when compared with a conventional posterior composite resin. Further evaluations are necessary for the long-term clinical performance of these materials.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessbulk-fill compositeclass II restorationclinical evaluationclinical performanceposterior compositeArticle8210.1111/jicd.1221026800647WOS:000407264700008N/A