Clinical evaluation of “Snowplow” technique versus Bulk-fill technique in restoration of class II cavities: A randomized clinical trial

Abstract

Abstract Aim: This study assessed the clinical performance of the “Snowplow” technique compared with the Bulk-fill technique in restoration of proximal cavities for 1 year using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Materials and Methods: The study was a 12-month, double-blinded, two parallel arms, randomized clinical trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio. A total of 32 patients with proximal caries were separated into two groups (n = 16): group 1: “Snowplow” technique using co-cured X-tra base flowable Bulk-fill composite/X-tra Fil Bulk-fill composite, whereas group 2: Bulk-fill technique using X-tra Fil Bulk-fill composite. Modified USPHS criteria were employed to assess the restorations at baseline, after 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. The MedCalc software, version 19 for Windows was used to statistically analyze the collected data. Intergroup comparisons were carried out using the chi-squared test with a statistical significance level set at P ≤ 0.05 after Bonferroni correction. Results: The results suggested that there was no statistically significant difference found between “Snowplow” and Bulk-fill techniques at different time intervals in terms of marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, anatomic contour, surface texture, gross fracture, and secondary caries, where P = 0.150550. Conclusion: This study concluded that the clinical performance of the “Snowplow” technique and Bulk-fill technique was similar and clinically acceptable following a full year of clinical use. Bulk-fill and “Snowplow” techniques are highly recommended restorative techniques in proximal cavities.