3D tooth models were virtually restored: flowable composite resin + bulk-fill composite (A), glass ionomer cement + bulk-fill composite (B) or adhesive + bulk-fill composite (C). Polymerization shrinkage and masticatory loads were simulated. All models exhibited the highest stress concentration at the enamel–restoration interfaces. A and C showed similar pattern with lower magnitude in A in comparison to C. B showed lower stress in dentine and C the highest cusps displacement. The use of glass ionomer cement or flowable composite resin in combination with a bulk-fill composite improved the biomechanical behavior of deep class II MO cavities
