Objective This study was aimed to compare the 12-month clinical performance of two full-body bulk-fill resin composites Filtek bulk fill/3M ESPE (FBF) and Tetric EvoCeram bulk fill/Ivoclar Vivadent (TBF) and a conventional microhybrid resin composite Filtek Z250/3M ESPE (Z250) using the modified the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) and Federation Dentaire Internationale (FDI) criteria. Also, the agreement between the two evaluation criteria was evaluated at baseline and after 12 months of follow-up.Materials and Methods A total of 138 class I and II restorations were placed in posterior teeth (split-mouth design) of 46 volunteers following manufacturer’s instructions and bonded with a self-etching bonding agent (Clear fill SE Bond/Kuraray). The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 12 months of follow-up by three previously calibrated dentists (Cohen’s K = 0.84).Statistical Analysis Fisher’s exact test and Pearson’s Chi-squared test were used to evaluating the homogeneity of distribution of the clinical characteristics. Friedman’s test was applied to evaluate differences among the resin composites. The results obtained for the USPHS and FDI criteria at the different observation times were compared using the Wilcoxon test. A level of significance of 0.05 was adopted for all tests.Results After 12 months (recall rate, 78.3%, n = 36 patients), the overall success rate was 99.07% for both criteria. Only one failed restoration (0.93%) was detected for each system during follow-up in the TBF group.Conclusion The bulk-fill resin composites showed satisfactory clinical performance compared with conventional resin composite after 12 months. The percentage of the acceptable scores was significantly higher for the USPHS criteria, due to discrepancies in the score description for each criterion.

Endodontic instruments are developed to provide a better cleaning of the root canal system and reduce its risk of fracture. The aim of this study was to evaluate the instrumentation time and cyclic fatigue resistance of WaveOne Gold, ProDesign R and ProDesign Logic files. Thirty Nickel-titanium (NiTi) rotary instruments were divided into 3 groups (n=10). ProDesign Logic file 25/0.06 was used in continuous rotation after glide path preparation. WaveOne Gold 25/0.07 and ProDesign R 25/0.06 files were used in reciprocating motion. Every file instrumented 3 standardized artificial canals. The average time, the number of cycles (NCI) and cyclic fatigue resistance of each file were determined through the number of cycles to failure (NCF) in a stainless-steel device. The total amount of cycles to fracture was also calculated (NCI+NCF). Data was analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests. The instrumentation time of the ProDesign Logic file was significantly lower when compared to the other files (P=0.019). The longest times to failure were presented by ProDesign Logic (182.07 sec) and ProDesign R (152.38 sec) files. The same differences were observed for the NCF (910.37 and 761.93). The WaveOne Gold group presented a lower NCF as well as a smaller sum of NCI+NCF (748.33) that was statistically significant when compared to the other groups (P<0.05) respectively. The use of continuous rotational motion in canals with a glide path in the ProDesign Logic group led to shorter instrumentation time. The cyclic fatigue resistance of ProDesign R and Logic instruments was superior to WaveOne Gold. The thermal treatment of the instrument’s alloy, its cross section and the glide path seems to influence the cyclic fatigue resistance.