RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the scientific evidence comparing the clinical effectiveness of bulk-fill versus incrementally layered conventional resin composites and to evaluate if one method offers clear merits with specific clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using relevant mesh terms and pre-established eligibility criteria in PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science, a thorough scientific search was conducted with an end-date of 30.04.2023. Randomized controlled clinical trials that involved the direct comparison of Class I and Class II resin composite restorations applied using incremental layering techniques versus bulk-filled in permanent teeth with an observation period of at least six months were considered. To evaluate the bias risk of the finalized records, a revised version of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was implemented. RESULTS: Out of the 1445 records determined, 18 eligible reports were chosen for qualitative analysis. Data obtained was categorized as per, the cavity design, the intervention, the comparator(s), the methods of success/failure assessment, the outcomes, and follow-up. Two studies demonstrated an overall low-risk of bias, fourteen studies raised some concerns, and two studies exhibited high-risk. CONCLUSION: Bulk filled resin composite restorations demonstrated clinical outcomes similar to those of incrementally layered resin composite restorations within a review interval of 6 months to 10 years.
