2025-11-182025-11-18https://repositorio.uandes.cl/handle/uandes/52543<p>Objectives: The aim of this double-blind, and randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the 5-year clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations placed with the incremental filling technique [IF] or the bulk-fill technique [BF]. Two different adhesive systems were used: etch-&amp;-rinse (ER) or self-etch (SE). Methods: Posterior dental teeth of 72 participants (n = 236), with a cavity depth of at least 3 mm, were randomly divided into four groups. Restorations were applied with either Tetric N-Bond or Tetric N-Bond SE. The composite resin Tetric N-Ceram Bulk-Fill was placed either with IF or BF. Restorations were evaluated using FDI criteria at baseline and after 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years. Statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon Signed rank test (a=0.05). Results: Two hundred and four restorations were evaluated after 5 years. Eleven restorations were considered 'failed', ten due to fracture (4 IF and 6 BF) and one due to secondary caries (IF). The annual failure rate was 1.2% for BF and 1% for IF (p = 0.35). When comparing BF and IF, no significant differences were found for any of the parameters evaluated (p &gt; 0.05). Regarding the adhesive systems, 44 and 51 restorations showed minor problems in terms of marginal adaptation and staining, with significantly more marginal discoloration when the self-etch adhesive was used (p = 0.002). Significance: The bulk-fill restorative technique showed good clinical behavior compared to the incremental filling technique, especially when using an etch-&amp;-rinse adhesive, after 5 years of clinical evaluation.</p>info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccessBulk-fillEtch-&-rinseIncremental filling techniquePostoperative sensitivityRandomized controlled trialResin compositeSelf-etchArticle