Comparison of Postoperative Sensitivity between Bulk-Fill Composite Restoration and Conventional Composite Restoration, Randomized Controlled Trial

Tahir  Awan; Alia  Ahmed; Muhammad Daniyal  Azhar

doi:10.54112/bcsrj.v6i4.1689

Authors

Tahir Awan Department of Operative Dentistry, Islamic International Dental College/Hospital, Islamabad, Pakistan
Alia Ahmed Department of Operative Dentistry, Islamic International Dental College/Hospital, Islamabad, Pakistan
Muhammad Daniyal Azhar Department of Operative Dentistry, Islamic International Dental College/Hospital, Islamabad, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v6i4.1689

Keywords:

Postoperative Sensitivity, Bulk-Fill Composite Restoration, Conventional Composite Restoration

Abstract

Postoperative sensitivity is a common concern following composite resin restorations, particularly in posterior teeth. Differences in restorative techniques, such as the use of conventional versus bulk-fill composites, may influence patient-reported sensitivity. However, evidence comparing these two approaches remains limited. Objective: To compare the frequency of postoperative sensitivity to thermal stimuli (hot and cold) in Class I posterior cavities restored with conventional composite resin versus bulk-fill resin composite. Methods: This randomized controlled trial was conducted at the Department of Operative Dentistry, Islamic International Dental College/Hospital, Islamabad, from September 30, 2024, to March 29, 2025. A total of 270 teeth were included and randomly allocated into two equal groups: Group A (n=135) received conventional composite restorations, and Group B (n=135) received bulk-fill resin composite restorations. Participants aged 20–60 years of either gender were enrolled using a non-probability purposive sampling technique. Postoperative sensitivity to thermal stimuli (hot and cold) was assessed, and data were analyzed using appropriate statistical tests with a significance level set at p < 0.05. Results: Group A had a mean age of 39.53 ± 11.60 years, and Group B had a mean age of 42.47 ± 11.63 years. In Group A, 6 patients (4.4%) reported postoperative sensitivity to hot stimuli, compared to 9 patients (6.7%) in Group B (p = 0.425). Sensitivity to cold stimuli was observed in 3 patients (2.2%) in Group A and 9 patients (6.7%) in Group B (p = 0.076). The differences between the two groups were not statistically significant. Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative sensitivity to thermal stimulation between Class I posterior restorations completed with bulk-fill composite resin and those restored using conventional composite resin. Both materials appear comparable in terms of short-term thermal sensitivity outcomes.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Balkaya H, Arslan S, Pala K. A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results. J Appl Oral Sci 2019;27:e20180678.

Chesterman J, Jowett A, Gallacher A, Nixon P. Bulk-fill resin-based composite restorative materials: a review. Br Dent J 2017;222(5):337-44.

Elkady M, Abdelhakim SH, Riad M. Impact of repeated preheating of bulk-fill resin composite on postoperative hypersensitivity; a randomized controlled clinical trial. BMC Oral Health 2024;24(1):453.

Davari A, Ataei E, Assarzadeh H. Dentin hypersensitivity: etiology, diagnosis and treatment; a literature review. J Dent (Shiraz) 2013;14(3):136-45.

Veloso SRM, Lemos CAA, de Moraes SLD, do Egito Vasconcelos BC, Pellizzer EP, de Melo Monteiro GQ. Clinical performance of bulk-fill and conventional resin composite restorations in posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig 2019;23(1):221-33.

Tardem C, Albuquerque EG, Lopes LS, Marins SS, Calazans FS, Poubel LA, Barcelos R, et al. Clinical time and postoperative sensitivity after use of bulk-fill (syringe and capsule) vs. incremental filling composites: a randomized clinical trial. Braz Oral Res 2019;33(0):e089.

Abd El-Ghany A, Alsamoully W, Mosaad GE, Hafez M. Comparing post-operative pain of nanohybrid and bulk fill composite resin restorations (In-vivo study). Al-Azhar Assiut Dent J 2022; 5(2):193-9.

Channa S, Rajput F, Bilgrami A, Javed F, Faraz H, Madiha. Evaluation of postoperative sensitivity of nano filled composite versus bulk filled resin composite in posterior class II restoration: Postoperative sensitivity of nano filled composite. Pak J Health Sci 2023;4(4)14-8.

Arbildo-Vega HI, Lapinska B, Panda S, Lamas-Lara C, Khan AS, Lukomska-Szymanska M. Clinical effectiveness of bulk-fill and conventional resin composite restorations: systematic review and meta-analysis. polymers (Basel) 2020;12(8):1786.

Yazici AR, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E, Karahan S, Antonson SA. Six-year clinical evaluation of bulk-fill and nanofill resin composite restorations. Clin Oral Investig 2022;26(1):417-26.

Afifi SMH, Haridy MF, Farid MR. Evaluation of post-operative sensitivity of bulk fill resin composite versus nano resin composite: a randomized controlled clinical study. Macedonian J Med Sci 2019;7(14):2335-42.

Ayar MK, Postoperative sensitivity after placement of bulk-fill posterior restoration, J Res Med Dent Sci 2017;5(3):53-8.

Cidreira Boaro LC, Pereira Lopes D, de Souza ASC, Lie Nakano E, Ayala Perez MD, Pfeifer CS, Gonçalves F. Clinical performance and chemical-physical properties of bulk fill composites resin -a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent Mater 2019;35(10):e249-64.

Nascimento AS, Rodrigues JFB, Torres RHN, Santos KO, Fook MVL, Albuquerque MS, Lima EA, Filgueira PTD, Santos JBMD, Oliveira LJR, Braz R. Physicomechanical and thermal analysis of bulk-fill and conventional composites. Braz Oral Res 2019;33:e008.

Berkowitz G, Spielman H, Matthews A, Vena D, Craig R, Curro F, Thompson V. Postoperative hypersensitivity and its relationship to preparation variables in Class I resin-based composite restorations: findings from the practitioners engaged in applied research and learning (PEARL) Network. Part 1. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2013;34(3):e44-52.