Aim: To compare the clinical performance of flowable versus packable bulk-fill Giomer restorative materials in compound class II restorations.

Materials and methods: 188 compound class II cavities were prepared and equally divided according to the type of restorative material (n=94): Group 1 (BFP): BEAUTIFIL Flow Plus X (SHOFU INC., Kyoto, Japan) and Group 2 (BBR): BEAUTIFL-Bulk Restorative (SHOFU INC., Kyoto, Japan). The restorations were assessed at baseline, after 6, 12, 18 and 24 months using the modified USPHS criteria for the following parameters: retention, marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, surface texture, postoperative hypersensitivity, and recurrence of caries. Statistical analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney U, Friedman's test and Nemenyi post hoc test.

Results: 172 restorations were evaluated at 24-month follow-up. For all parameters and intervals, no significant differences were observed between both groups (p<0.05). For marginal discoloration measured in both groups, there was a significant increase in the percentage of cases with bravo score after 18 and 24 months (p<0.05). For postoperative hypersensitivity measured in both groups, there was a significant increase in the percentage of cases with alpha score at 6 months (p<0.05).

Conclusion: The clinical performance of flowable and packable bulk-fill Giomers was accepted after two years of evaluation.