Çakır Kılınç, Nazire NurdanDemirbuğa, Sezer2025-02-242025-02-2420232146-176710.5577/idr.2023.vol13.no2.4https://doi.org/10.5577/idr.2023.vol13.no2.4https://search.trdizin.gov.tr/tr/yayin/detay/1238540https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14440/335Aim: The purpose of this randomized split-mouth clinical study was to assess the effect of three adhesive systems on the 2-year clinical success of Class I composite resin restorations. Methodology: In the treatment of the Class I carious lesions of 20 participants aged 18–24 years with at least three similar carious lesions, three adhesives—Clearfil SE Bond (CSE; Kuraray, Osaka, Japan), Single Bond 2 (SB2; 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA), and Tri-S Bond (TSB; Kuraray, Osaka, Japan)— and a Filtek Z550 nanohybrid composite resin (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) were cured. The baseline and 2-year results of the restorations were assessed according to the World Dental Federation (FDI) and the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. The chi-square test was used to analyze the data obtained. Results: There was no loss of restoration in any group at 2 years. No significant differences were observed in any criteria (marginal staining, fracture retention, secondary caries, and postoperative sensitivity) evaluated except marginal adaptation, in accordance with FDI and USPHS criteria (p > 0.05). At 2 years, SB2 showed the best marginal adaptation, followed by CSE and TBS. There was a statistically significant difference between SB2 and TSB (p ? 0.05). Conclusion: All three adhesive systems can be used successfully in the restoration of Class I carious lesions.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessDiş HekimliğiArticle74267123854013