Main objective: Compare the clinical performance with FDI of repairs proximal RC restorations between a conventional resin and a RBF in a period of 24 months. Hypothesis: There is not different clinical performance of proximal RC repairs done with RBF when compared to conventional RC repairs. Material and method: 80 volunteer patients will be randomly recruited to attend the clinic of the Faculty of Dentistry of the University of Chile who have two proximal RC restorations with indication of repair according to the FDI system (n per group = 80). Each patient must accept and sign an informed consent. The repairs will be randomly divided into two groups on the same patient. Control Group: Conventional RC repair (Z350 XT). Experimental Group: RBF (Tetric Evoceram Bulk Fill) Repair. For the restorative technique, a three-step adhesive with acid-etched enamel-dentin will be used. It will be evaluated at 2 weeks (Baseline), at 6, 12, 18, 24 months by two blind and calibrated evaluators (Cohen Kappa> 0.8). The data will be analyzed with the SSPS 21.0 software and the Friedman, Wilcoxon and Mann Whitney tests will be applied with a significance level of 95%.
Bulk Fill (RBF) composite resins (RC) has been on the market, with the main advantage of being applied in a single layer, faster and easier than a conventional RC. Repair of RC restorations is a validated treatment option in dentistry, which has been shown to increase the longevity of restorations by minimizing tooth damage such as complete replacement. Currently there are no clinical studies that support the actual performance of RBF repair