Evaluation of Air Abrasion Surface Pretreatment in the Repairing Capacity of Defective Composite Restoration

Clinical Evaluation of Bioactive Injectable Hybrid Resin Composite Restoration With or Without Air Abrasion Surface Pretreatment in the Repairing Capacity of Defective Composite Restoration, A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Status

Completed

Phases

Study type

Interventional

Source

ClinicalTrials.gov

Registry ID

NCT05500430

Enrollment

Registered

2022-08-15

Start date

2022-01-20

Completion date

2024-02-01

Last updated

2024-02-07

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Repair

Keywords

repair, defective restoration, sandblasting

Brief summary

This study is conducted to compare the efficacy of surface pretreatment using air abrasion sandblasting aluminum oxide particles (Al2O3) versus not pretreatment in the repair capacity of defective composite restoration indicated for repair.

Detailed description

First the rationale for the repair, rather than the replacement of defective direct composite restorations proved a less invasive procedure with decreased tooth loss avoiding weakening and overtreatment of tooth. Less traumatic or stressful than replacement for patients with good acceptance; Increased longevity of the restoration; Reduction of potentially harmful effects on the dental pulp and Less risk of iatrogenic damage to adjacent teeth. Secondary using surface treatment strategies aim to prepare a clean surface with high surface energy to provide better wettability with adequate surface roughness and surface area by removing the superficial layer of the aged composite which lead to increase integrity between old and new resin restoration.

Interventions

DEVICEAir abrasion sandblasting aluminum oxide particles (Al2O3) AquaCare single (Velopex, Medivance Instruments Ltd., London, UK)

Air abrasion sandblasting aluminum oxide particles (Al2O3) Aqua Care single (London, UK) will be done for the defective area then repairing with bioactive injectable composite, Beautiful Flow Plus X F00 (Shofu, Japan).

Study design

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Intervention model

PARALLEL

Primary purpose

TREATMENT

Masking

DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)

Masking description

Double (Participant, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

ALL

Age

20 Years to 50 Years

Healthy volunteers

Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Co-operative patients approving to participate in the trial. * patient with occlusal defects class I or class II composite resin restorations indicated for repair.

Exclusion criteria

* Allergic history concerning methacrylate. * Rampant caries. * Disabilities patient * Pregnancy * Heavy smoking. * Xerostomia. * Lack of compliance. * Evidence of parafunctional habits. * Temporomandibular joint disorders.

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame	Description
Change in the clinical performance	Change from the baseline at 12 months	Change in the clinical performance Measured using modified USPHS criteria for clinical evaluation of restoration failure. Measuring Unit: Scoring system (Ordinal): * Alfa * Bravo * Charlie * Delta

Countries

Egypt

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026