Compare Filtek Supreme vs Estelite Sigma Quick vs GC Essentia for posterior composites

Tables and figures

Table 3 — Comparison of performances of composite resins according to evaluated outcomes. Outcome | Best-Performing Materials | Lower-Performing Materials | Main Findings/Trends Handling/Adaptation | Flowable composite resins. G-aenial Universal Injectable, GC: Bis EMA, UDMA, silica, barium glass, Ultra Fine (150 nm) (69 wt%) | Conventional nanohybrid composite resins | Flowable composite resins provide better adaptation and easier handling. Overall Clinical Recommendation | Posterior: nanohybrid/high-viscosity composite resins | Anterior: selected flowable composite resins with high filler loads | Material choice should balance mechanical load and esthetic needs.

Material Properties of Composite Resins Used for Orthodontic Attachments in Clear Aligner Therapy: A Systematic Review. © 2026 by the authors. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Introduction

Over the past ten years, there has been a significant rise in demand for aesthetic restorations.4 Resin-based composite is currently one of the most extensively utilized materials in aesthetic dentistry.4,5 Composite resins' advantage is their strong bonding capability to enamel and dentin.4 However, achieving precise anatomic proximal contacts remains a challenge during the placement of direct posterior restorations. This issue arises from various factors, such as the inability to 'condense' composite material like amalgam, resulting in inadequate matrix adaptation to the neighboring tooth and polymerization shrinkage.5 Moreover, blood and tissue fluid contamination in Class-II composite restorations reduces bond strength, inhibits polymerization, and increases microleakage, emphasizing the need for proper isolation and decontamination.6

Comparison of proximal contact tightness and contour of bioclear biofit HD versus Composi-tight 3DXR matrix systems in Class-II composite restoration: A randomized clinical study. © 2025 The Authors. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Background

In recent decades, resin composites (RCs) have demonstrated significant potential for replacing amalgam in dental restorations. In addition to their aesthetic appearance, composite restorations necessitate no significant preparations, preserve tooth structure, and have demonstrated promising clinical performance within posterior teeth [1, 2]. Several factors contribute to the success of direct composite restoration, such as the material properties, cavity preparation design, and the technique utilized for material application [3]. Various techniques for placing composite resin were suggested to enhance the restorations clinical outcomes and mitigate the polymerization shrinkage adverse effects and the resulting stress [4]. To eliminate the impact of shrinkage stress and minimize the occurrence of gap formation, several strategies have been employed. These include procedures like resin restorations indirect placement, utilization of a flowable resin liner, careful control of curing light intensity, and implementation of incremental layering methods [5].

The impact of Bis-GMA free and Bis-GMA containing resin composite as posterior restoration on marginal integrity: a randomized controlled clinical trial. © The Author(s) 2023. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction

Conventional, medium-viscosity composite resins are the most commonly used materials for both anterior and posterior restorations [1,2]. Conservation of tooth structure, an adequate color adaptability, satisfactory mechanical properties, and the lower cost compared to indirect restorative counterparts are listed as the benefits of these biomaterials [3,4]. However, their inferior rheological characteristics result in marginal defects, due to a poor adaptation to cavity walls and voids between increments [5]. To confine these drawbacks, first-generation flowable composites were launched in the 1990s, which contained 20–25% less filler loading compared to medium-viscosity composite resins [6,7]. Their low viscosity was conducive to ease of use, improved handling and wetting properties, a good adaptability to cavity walls, and restricted air bubble entrapment in their mass [8,9]. On the other hand, their mechanical and optical properties were impaired by their reduced filler content [10], limiting their use to only as class V restorative materials, liners, pit and fissure sealants, and as materials for marginal restoration repair [6]. Their high volumetric polymerization shrinkage rate of approximately 5% proved to be an additional disadvantage of traditional flowable composite resins [5].

Highly Filled Flowable Composite Resins as Sole Restorative Materials: A Systematic Review. © 2025 by the authors. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Tables and figures

Table 3 — In vitro studies incorporating conventional composite resins into their methodological framework. Author/Year | Dental Materials and Procedures | Tested Parameters and Key Findings Francois et al., 2024 [67] | Nine highly filled flowable resin composites + viscous composites + traditional flowable composites | Flexural strength/wear resistance: Most highly filled composites exhibited-similar flexural strength-superior wear resistancecompared to viscous composites. Elastic modulus: Conventional composite resins > highly filled flowables > traditional flowables Jrady et al., 2024 [68] | (1)Microhybrid composite resin (Gradia Direct Anterior, GC Corp., Tokyo, Japan)(2)Nanohybrid composite resin (Palfique LX5, Tokuyama Dental Corp, Tokyo, Japan)(3)Nanofilled composite resin (Filtek Universal, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA)(4)Highly filled flowable composite resin (G-aenial Universal Injectable, GC)Polishing procedures:(1)No polishing (control group)(2)4-step polishing using aluminum oxide discs (Sof-Lex polishing discs, 3M ESPE)(3)3-step polishing using silicon rubber diamond discs (Astropol, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Lichtenstein)(4)1-step polishing (Charisma Easyshine, Kulzer Dental, Hanau, Germany)+ immersion in water or coffee | Color stability: Material type, polishing technique, storage media, and their interaction influence ΔΕ values. The lowest color change is present inHighly filled flowable composite resin compared to other materials3-step polishing diamond discs compared to other polishing proceduresWater compared to coffeeHighly filled flowable composite resin is more resistant to staining

Highly Filled Flowable Composite Resins as Sole Restorative Materials: A Systematic Review. © 2025 by the authors. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Tables and figures

Table 5 — Randomized controlled clinical trials with highly filled flowable composite resins. Author/Year | Objective | Materials | Sample Size/Time Intervals | Evaluation Criteria | Results Kitasako et al., 2016 [81] | Mid-size to extensive posterior restorations after 36 months. | 1. Conventional composite resin (Estelite Sigma Quick, Tokuyama, Tokyo, Japan) 2. Highly filled flowable composite resin (G-aenial Universal Flo, GC) two-step self-etch adhesive applied to both materials | 58 mid-size to extensive posterior composite restorations in 32 patients Restoration evaluation: a. After placement b. 6 months c. 12 months d. 24 months e. 36 months After 36 months 42 restorations were evaluated in 21 patients | World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria | No statistically significant difference between cavities restored with highly filled flowable and conventional composite resins No secondary caries observed. Zhang et al., 2021 [82] | Non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) after 3 years | 1. Highly filled flowable composite (Clearfil Majesty ES Flow, Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc., Tokyo, Japan) 2. Conventional paste-type composite (Clearfil Majesty ES-2, Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc., Tokyo, Japan) Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc., Tokyo, Japan) | 84 NCCLs in 27 subjects were included Restoration evaluation: a. baseline (BL) b. 1 year c. 2 years d. And 3 years | FDI criteria | No significant difference between the two material groups at any time interval concerning functional properties The highly filled flowable resin composite presented a significantly bettersurface luster (p < 0.01) at the 1-year recallmarginal staining (p < 0.05)at any time point

Highly Filled Flowable Composite Resins as Sole Restorative Materials: A Systematic Review. © 2025 by the authors. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).