Resin composites have demonstrated great clinical success in restoring class III and IV with a success rate of 90 to 95 % over a 10-year period [1]. This satisfactory performance can be attributed to advancements in adhesive techniques and improvements in materials formulations, which have significantly enhanced their physical properties [2]. An aesthetically ideal restoration should be indistinguishable from the surrounding natural tooth substrates at a normal conversational distance. Particularly in the anterior region, this concern is pronounced, since even minor discrepancies in the optical properties of the restored area, compared to the adjacent tooth structure or neighboring teeth, are readily noticeable. Achieving an optimal color match between the restoration and the natural tooth structure requires considering factors beyond the resin's color itself [3].

The tooth is composed of biological tissues with distinct chemical and structural characteristics, which result in unique interactions with incident light [4]. Enamel has a certain translucency, allowing light to pass through it to a greater or lesser degree. Dentin, on the other hand, is nearly opaque and primarily responsible for light scattering within the dental tissues. Thus, the visual aspect of a tooth is the result of this complex interaction [5]. To replicate these optical properties, manufacturers have developed restorative materials with varying levels of translucency, aiming to simulate the characteristics of enamel and dentin [6,7]. These materials are applied using the incremental technique, recreating the natural layers of enamel and dentin that have been lost [[8], [9], [10]].

Although enamel translucency is a defining characteristic across all individuals, its level can vary from person to person. Certain teeth have almost completely transparent enamel, while others exhibit varying levels of translucency, sometimes showing a milky or pearly appearance [7]. In addition to the variation in the translucency level itself, enamel also varies in value, with some being lighter and others darker. These variations often make it highly challenging for clinicians to achieve an ideal optical reconstruction during restorative procedure.

To enhance clinical applicability for dentists who purchase a resin composite kit, most commercially available materials are universally indicated for both anterior and posterior restorations. These universal materials typically feature a medium-translucency enamel shade, which allows for satisfactory outcomes in a wide range of clinical situations. However, in patients with highly translucent enamel, such materials may not produce an ideal result. Therefore, the translucency limitations of most universal materials have led some manufacturers to develop specialized kits for anterior restorations. A key characteristic of these kits is the use of enamel composites with significantly higher translucency compared their universal counterparts. An in vitro evaluation comparing the translucency of anterior teeth-specific composites in relation to the universal ones from the same manufacturer found that the enamel shades in the former were 55 % more translucent than those in the latter [11,12].

Although there are different possibilities for performing aesthetic anterior restorations, there is a lack of clinical evidence demonstrating that high-translucency materials developed mainly for anterior teeth provide clinical results comparable to those of universally indicated resin composites [13]. Additionally, it remains unclear whether material translucency influences patient satisfaction or restoration longevity. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate whether a material specially developed for anterior restorations, with high-translucency enamel shades, presents significantly different clinical performance than a universal composite with medium-translucency chromatic enamel, when used in class III and IV restorations. The null hypothesis tested was that both materials would present similar clinical performance.