Background/Objectives: This double-blinded study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of a giomer restorative material in comparison to a nanotechnology-based restorative system for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions over a period of 48 months. Methods: A 48-month randomized, controlled, split-mouth trial was conducted with 49 subjects at its baseline, which was reduced to 34 subjects at follow-up, yielding a statistical power of 69.55%. Cervical lesions were restored using either BEAUTIFIL II LS (BL) or 3M/ESPE Filtek Supreme Universal Restorative (FS). Clinical assessments were performed by blinded examiners, excluding the one who placed the restorations. Evaluations were based on the Hickel criteria, covering esthetic, functional, and biological properties, with comparisons made using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: Hickel scores were analyzed with the Mann–Whitney U test to compare BL and FS groups within subjects. Changes in median Hickel scores, sensitivity, and the gingival index were assessed via Friedman’s test, followed by Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with a Bonferroni correction for post-hoc comparisons. The p-values under 0.05 were considered significant, except with the Bonferroni correction. Statistical analysis showed no significant differences between materials across most Hickel parameters (p > 0.05), though BL exhibited a trend of better surface staining (76.5% excellent with BL vs. 76.5% excellent with FS) and adjacent mucosa, while FS showed slight advantages in surface luster and color match. Conclusions: The clinical evaluation of restorations for non-carious cervical lesions using giomer and nanotechnology-based restorative systems revealed no statistically significant differences according to the Hickel criteria, indicating a similar clinical performance for both restorative materials.

Background/Objectives: This randomized, split-mouth clinical trial compared the 72-month clinical performance of a giomer-based restorative material (BEAUTIFIL II LS) and a nanohybrid restorative composite (Filtek Supreme Universal) in Class V non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs). Methods: Forty-nine participants, each with two paired NCCLs, were enrolled (98 restorations) and received both materials under a standardized total-etch adhesive protocol. Clinical performance was assessed at 72 months using modified Hickel/FDI criteria across esthetic, functional, and biological domains, with between-material comparisons performed by paired nonparametric analysis (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) for complete paired observations. Results: Of the 49 participants enrolled, 26 attended the 72-month follow-up visit and 25 contributed evaluable data, yielding 44 evaluable restorations. No restoration was lost, and no statistically significant differences were detected between BEAUTIFIL II LS and Filtek Supreme Universal for any evaluated esthetic, functional, or biological criterion. Both materials showed acceptable clinical performance, with minor changes related mainly to marginal staining and marginal adaptation over time. Conclusions: BEAUTIFIL II LS and Filtek Supreme Universal showed similar long-term clinical performance in Class V non-carious cervical lesion restorations over 72 months. Within the limitations imposed by long-term attrition, material selection may be guided by clinical requirements, handling characteristics, and clinician preference.