Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate, Bulk-fill Which is Special Type of Resin Composite
Conditions
Brief summary
The current study will be intended to evaluate and compare three-year clinical performance of class II bulk-fill resin composite restorations placed with different techniques.
Detailed description
Fifty patients with proximal carious lesion in permanent molars were included in the study. A total eighty class II cavities were restored with one of the following bulk-fill resin composite with their adhesive systems (n=20) Filtek™ Bulk Fill, Heated Filtek™ Bulk Fill, G-aenial™ BULK Injectable or Sonicfill3. Double blinded randomized clinical trial with survival and clinical quality were evaluated at baseline, after 12 , 24 and 36months using modified FDI(Fédération dentaire internationale) World Dental Federation criteria
Interventions
OTHERG-aenial™ BULK Injectable restoration
restoration of class II caries with different bulk-fill technique
OTHERSonicfill3 restoration
restoration of class II caries with different bulk-fill technique
OTHERFiltek™ Bulk Fill restoration
restoration of class II caries with different bulk-fill technique
OTHERHeated Filtek™ Bulk Fill restoration
restoration of class II caries with different bulk-fill technique
Sponsors
Mansoura University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Investigator)
Intervention model description
Multi-arm parallel design was followed in this study. There were four group according to placement techniques of bulk-fill resin composite restorations. Each group received 20 restored class II cavities. All the restorations will be clinically evaluated after 1 week(baseline), 12, 24 and 36 months. Restoration will be evaluated using FDI criteria
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 35 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Good general health * Good oral hygienic * Patient aging 18-35 year * Patient available for follow-up visits compound class II (mesio-occlusal or disto-occlusal) * Carious lesion in the external and middle third of dentin thickness * ICDAS (International caries detection and assessment system) 4 or 5 that diagnosed clinically and radiographically. * Maxillary or mandibular first or second molars * Tooth with antagonist and adjacent mesial and distal tooth contact, * Normal response to a vitality test.
Exclusion criteria
* Poor oral hygiene * Severe or chronic periodontitis * Heavy bruxism * Occlusion fewer than 20 teeth * Sensitivity to resin-based material. * Patients with orthodontic treatment * Patients on pregnancy or lactation * chronic use of anti-inflammatory drugs, analgesic, and/or psychotropic drugs * Patient potentially unable to attend recall visits * Teeth would need direct pulp capping or * Teeth act as abutment for fixed or removable prosthesis.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Esthetic Properties of restorations | Three years Follow up | criteria that evaluated according to Modified FDI(International Dental Federation) world dental federation is: 1. Surface luster 2. Staining 3. Color match and translucency 4. Esthetic and Anatomic form Descriptive scale from 1 to 5. Note: 1 is clinically excellent 5 is clinically poor |
| Functional Properties of restorations | Three years Follow up | criteria that evaluated according to Modified FDI (International Dental Federation) world dental federation is: 1. Fractures of material and retention 2. Marginal adaptation 3. Occlusal contour and wear 4. Proximal anatomical form 5. Patient's view Descriptive scale from 1 to 5. Note: 1 is clinically excellent 5 is clinically poor |
| Biological Properties of restorations | Three years Follow up | criteria that evaluated according to Modified FDI (International Dental Federation) world dental federation is: 1. Post-operative (hyper-sensitivity) and tooth vitality 2. Recurrence of caries, erosion, abfraction 3. Tooth integrity (enamel cracks, tooth fractures) 4. Periodontal 5. Adjacent Mucosa 6. Oral and General Health Descriptive scale from 1 to 5. Note: 1 is clinically excellent 5 is clinically poor |
Countries
Egypt
Outcome results
None listed