The material in capsule form was placed in the mixer (Ultramat 2, SDI, Australia) and mixed for 10 seconds, and applied to the cavity in a single step. The restorative material was polymerized for 20 seconds using an LED light device (VALO, Ultradent, Utah, USA). Equia Forte Coat was applied and polymerized for 20 seconds.

The material in capsule form was mixed in the mixer (Ultramat 2, SDI, Australia) for 10 seconds, and applied to the cavity in a single step. Polymerization was achieved using an LED light device (VALO, Ultradent, Utah, USA) for 20 seconds.

The material was mixed using a plastic spatula on a mixing pad or glass with a powder-to-liquid ratio of 1:1 until it reached a homogeneous consistency, which took approximately 45 -60 seconds. Then the material was applied to the cavity and allowed to set for its self-curing time of 4 and a half minutes.

The material in capsule form was placed in the mixer (Ultramat 2, SDI, Australia) and mixed for 12 seconds, and applied to the cavity in a single step. In addition to the 90-second working time, an additional 4 and a half minutes were allowed for the material to cure.

The cavity preparation and restoration were performed by a single operator. Infected dentin tissue was selectively removed. The differentiation between infected and affected dentin was determined by the clinician through the visual-tactile method.Isolation was achieved with cotton rolls and suction.

Restorations were evaluated for retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, color stability, secondary caries, and postoperative sensitivity according to the modified USPHS with scores assigned as follows: the best being Alpha and the worst being Charlie. Each restoration received a score of Alpha, Bravo, or Charlie at each time interval.

The modified USPHS criteria do not include the measure of pulpal vitality when evaluating the success of restorations. However, maintaining pulpal vitality is also a criterion for the success of a restoration and is assessed not by a graded score but by the presence or absence of symptoms and findings. In this study, pulpal vitality was clinically evaluated based on the presence or absence of percussion sensitivity, palpation sensitivity, gingival redness, fistula or abscess. If percussion sensitivity, palpation sensitivity, or the formation of a fistula or abscess were present, the restoration was classified as unsuccessful regarding pulpal vitality. In cases of gingival redness or unclear clinical symptoms, a periapical radiograph was taken. If presence or absence of radiolucency in the periapical or furcal area was detected in the radiograph, the restoration was classified as unsuccessful regarding pulpal vitality.