Clinical Relevance The clinical performance of both conventional and flowable giomer restorative materials was particularly good in Class I restorations after three years of service. SUMMARY This study evaluated and compared the clinical performance of a flowable and a conventional giomer restorative material after three years. Forty-four pairs of restorations (total n=88) were placed in Class I cavities with either a flowable giomer (Beautifil Flow Plus F00; Shofu Inc, Kyoto, Japan) or a conventional giomer restorative material (Beautifil II; Shofu Inc) after the application of a dentin adhesive (FL-Bond II; Shofu Inc) and a flowable liner (Beautifil Flow Plus F03; Shofu Inc). After 3 years, 39 pairs of restorations were evaluated with the modified United States Public Health Service criteria, and digital color photographs of restorations were taken at each patient visit. The evaluation parameters were as follows: color match, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, retention, secondary caries formation, anatomic form, surface texture, and postoperative sensitivity. Evaluations were recorded as a clinically ideal situation (Alpha), a clinically acceptable situation (Bravo), or a clinically unacceptable situation (Charlie). Data were analyzed with Fisher’s exact and McNemar tests (α=0.05). None of the restorations showed retention loss, postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries, or color change. The performance of Beautifil II in terms of marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, and surface anatomic form was significantly lower at the 36-month follow-up than at baseline (p=0.007). There were no significant differences between the baseline and 36-month follow-up scores for the other criteria for Beautifil II (p>0.05). No differences were found between the baseline and the 36-month follow-up scores for any of the criteria for Beautifil Flow Plus F00 (p>0.05). No statistically significant difference in overall clinical performance was found between the 2 materials after 36 months (p>0.05). The three-year clinical performance of both restorative materials (Beautifil Flow Plus F00 and Beautifil II) was very good and not significantly different for any of the parameters evaluated.

Objective To evaluate and compare the clinical performance of two nano‐hybrid giomer restorative composite materials after 5 years. Materials and Methods Forty‐four pairs of restorations (total n = 88) of a flowable giomer (Beautifil Flow Plus F00; Shofu Inc., Kyoto, Japan) and a conventional nano‐hybrid giomer restorative material (Beautifil II; Shofu Inc.) were placed in Class I cavities after the application of a dentin adhesive (FL‐Bond II; Shofu Inc.) and a flowable liner (Beautifil Flow Plus F03; Shofu Inc). After 5 years, 32 pairs of restorations were assessed using the modified United States Public Health Service criteria. Both tested materials were compared using Fisher's exact test and each tested clinical criterion for each material was analyzed separately with respect to different follow‐up periods using Friedman's test (a = 0.05). Results None of the restorations showed complete retention loss, post‐operative sensitivity, secondary caries or color change. There were no significant changes to any of the clinical criteria for each material during the 5‐year evaluation period (p > 0.05) and no significant differences between the two materials in all clinical parameters after 5 years (p > 0.05). Conclusions Five‐year clinical performance of both two nano‐hybrid giomer restorative materials was comparably acceptable and not significantly different for any of the parameters evaluated. Clinical Significance Nano‐hybrid giomer‐based materials are clinically acceptable for the restoration of occlusal cavities as they demonstrate excellent performance after 5 years.

Abstract. The article substantiates current actual technologies of the activity of the head of the educational institution.The fundraising competence of the head of the educational institution as the newest component of managerial competencies related to the requirements of time and changes in the guidelines of the society in order to implement a fundraising system in the innovative strategic management of the educational institution is grounded in the article. The general theoretical questions concerning the emission of knowledge about the essence of fundraising in the education system and the concept of "fundraising" are specified. The emphasis is on conducting an effective fundraising campaign to raise funds for the implementation of socially significant and scientific projects, resource search for a quality educational process.