The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 11 , ISSUE 2 ( March, 2010 ) > List of Articles


Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial of Posterior Composite Restorations with and without Bevel: 6-Month Follow-up

Fabio Herrmann Coelho-de-Souza, Celso Afonso Klein-Júnior, Junara Cristina Camargo, Tiago Beskow, Matheus Dalmolin Balestrin, Flávio Fernando Demarco

Citation Information : Coelho-de-Souza FH, Klein-Júnior CA, Camargo JC, Beskow T, Balestrin MD, Demarco FF. Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial of Posterior Composite Restorations with and without Bevel: 6-Month Follow-up. J Contemp Dent Pract 2010; 11 (2):1-8.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-11-2-1

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-06-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2010; The Author(s).



This double-blind randomized clinical trial compared the performance of posterior composite restorations with and without bevel.

Methods and Materials

Thirteen volunteers requiring at least two posterior Class II restorations were selected. Twenty-nine cavity preparations were performed, comprising 14 without bevel (butt joint) and 15 with marginal beveling. All cavities were restored with a simplified adhesive system (Adper Single Bond, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA) and composite resin (Filtek P60, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA). A halogen light-curing unit (XL 3000, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA) was used throughout the study. Restorations were polished immediately. Analysis was carried out at baseline and after six months by a calibrated evaluator (kappa), according to FDI criteria.


The results were statistically analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests (p<0.05). Beveled and nonbeveled restorations performed similarly after six months in relation to fractures and retention, marginal adaptation, postoperative hypersensitivity, recurrence of caries, surface luster, and anatomic form. However, for surface and marginal staining, beveled restorations showed significantly better performance than butt joint restorations (p<0.05).


Restorations performed were acceptable after six months, but beveled restorations showed less marginal staining than nonbeveled restorations.

Clinical Significance

Bevel used in posterior composite restorations decreased the surface and marginal staining, in six-month evaluations.


Coelho-de-Souza FH, Klein-Júnior CA, Camargo JC, Beskow T, Balestrin MD, Demarco FF. Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial of Posterior Composite Restorations with and without Bevel: 6-Month Follow-up. J Contemp Dent Pract [Internet]. 2010 March; 11(2):001-008. Available from: volume11-issue2-souza.

PDF Share
  1. A 5- and 8-year clinical evaluation of a posterior composite resin. Quintessence Int. 1991; 22(2):143-51.
  2. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent. 2001; 3(1):45-64.
  3. Buonocore memorial lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent. 2004; 29(5):481-508.
  4. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res. 2005; 84(2):118-32.
  5. A review of polymerization contraction: the influence of stress development versus stress relief. Oper Dent. 1996; 21(1):17-24.
  6. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper dent. 2003; 28(3):215-35.
  7. Shear bond strength, microleakage and gap formation with fourth generation dentin bonding agents. Am J Dent 1994; 7(6):312-4.
  8. Necessity of bevels for box only Class II composite restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 1998; 80(3):274-9.
  9. Influence of beveling and ultrasound application on marginal adaptation of box-only Class II (slot) resin composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2007; 32(3):291-7.
  10. Fracture resistance and gap formation of MOD restorations: influence of restorative technique, bevel preparation and water storage. Oper Dent. 2008; 33(1):37-43.
  11. Influence of the crystal orientation in human enamel on its reactivity to acid as shown by high resolution microradiography. Arch Oral Biol. 1967; 12(5):583-92.
  12. Influence of restorative technique, beveling, and aging on composite bonding to sectioned incisal edges. J Adhes Dent. 2008; 10(2):113-7.
  13. , Leinfelder KF. Three-year study of two lightcured posterior composite resins. Dent Mater. 1986; 2(6):263-8.
  14. Acta Odontol Scand. 1999; 57(4):216-20.
  15. Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: 5-year follow-up. J Dent. 2000; 28(6):375-82.
  16. Direct resin composite inlays/ onlays: an 11 year follow-up. J Dent. 2000; 28(5):299-306.
  17. Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth. Clin Oral Investig. 2003; 7(2):63-70.
  18. Composite resin fillings and inlays. An 11-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig. 2003; 7(2):71-9.
  19. One-year clinical evaluation of two polyacid-modified resin composites (compomers) in posterior permanent teeth. J Adhes Dent. 2004; 6(2):157-62.
  20. Effect of restoration size on the clinical performance of posterior “packable” resin composites over 18 months. Oper Dent. 2007; 32(3):212-6.
  21. Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Science Committee Project 2/98—FDI World Dental Federation study design (Part I) and criteria for evaluation (Part II) of direct and indirect restorations including onlays and partial crowns. J Adhes Dent. 2007;9 Suppl 1:121-47.
  22. Effect of light source position and bevel placement on facial margin adaptation of resin-based composite restorations. Am J Dent. 2000; 13(4):171-5.
  23. The influence of occlusal finish line configuration on microleakage of indirect composite inlays. J Adhes Dent. 2002; 4(2):145-50.
  24. Effect of adhesive systems and bevel on enamel margin integrity in primary and permanent teeth. Pediatr Dent. 2008; 30(2):134-40.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.