Two‐year clinical comparison of a flowable‐type nano‐hybrid composite and a paste‐type composite in posterior restoration

Aim The purpose of the present study was to compare the clinical efficacy between a flowable‐type nano‐hybrid composite and a paste‐type composite for posterior restoration. Methods Of 62 posterior teeth in 33 patients (mean age: 34.1 years), 31 were filled with a paste‐type composite (Heliomolar [HM] group), and another 31 with a flowable nano‐hybrid composite (MI FIL [MI] group). Clinical efficacy was evaluated at 2 years after the restoration. Results There were no differences for retention, surface texture deterioration, anatomical form change, deterioration of marginal adaptation, and secondary caries, while a statistical difference was found for marginal discoloration, which was significantly greater in the HM group (P < 0.05). Furthermore, color matching in the MI group was superior to that in the HM group immediately after the restoration throughout the study period. Conclusions The present 2‐year clinical evaluation of different composites showed that the flowable nano‐hybrid composite could be an effective esthetic material for posterior restoration.