Gomes Torres, Carlos Rocha [UNESP]Chagas Rego, Heleine Maria [UNESP]Costa Perote, Leticia C. C. [UNESP]Santos, Luciana F. Thives F. [UNESP]Beber Kamozaki, Maria Beatriz [UNESP]Gutierrez, Natalia Cortez [UNESP]Di Nicolo, Rebeca [UNESP]Borges, Alessandra Buehler [UNESP]2014-12-032014-12-032014-07-01Journal Of Dentistry. Oxford: Elsevier Sci Ltd, v. 42, n. 7, p. 793-799, 2014.0300-5712http://hdl.handle.net/11449/112980Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the 2-year clinical performance of class II restorations made with a composite resin with two different viscosities.Methods: 47 patients received two class II restorations (n = 94), one made with GrandioSO (conventional viscosity CV), and the other with GrandioSO Heavy Flow (flowable viscosity FV), subjecting both materials to the same clinical conditions. The self-etching adhesive Futurabond M was used for all restorations. The composites were inserted using the incremental technique. The restorations were evaluated using the modified USPHS criteria according to the periods: baseline, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years after restorative procedures.Results: After 24 months, 40 patients attended the recall and 78 restorations were evaluated. In all periods, no secondary caries was observed. After 6 months, there were slightly overall changes of scores for most parameters. After 24 months, the higher number of changes from score Alfa to Bravo was observed for marginal discolouration (32.5% CV and 39.5% FV) and colour match (15% CV and 31.6% FV), followed by proximal contact (25% CV and 23.7% FV) and marginal adaptation (20% CV and 21.1% FV). For wear, surface texture and postoperative sensitivity the changes were very small. Just two restorations were lost during the 24-month follow up. Less than 5% of all restorations showed postoperative sensitivity. Chi-square test showed no significant differences between the two materials for all parameters analysed.Conclusion: After 2 years of clinical service, no significant differences were observed between GrandioSO conventional and GrandioSO Heavy Flow for the parameters analysed. Both materials provided acceptable clinical behaviour in class II restorations. Clinical Significance: This study presents the possibility of using a flowable composite with high filler content, for performing class II restorations. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.793-799engComposite resinClinical trialDental restorationsUSPHS criteriaFlowableArtigo10.1016/j.jdent.2014.04.009WOS:000338401400005Acesso restrito3135367849609938