Dental Caries Class II
Conditions
Keywords
Bulk-fill resin composite, Dual-cure, Light-cure, Class ӀӀ restorations, Clinical performance, Randomized clinical trial
Brief summary
This study (a double-blinded, prospective, randomized clinical trial) aimed to evaluate 2-year clinical performance of dual- and light-cure bulk-fill resin composites in Class ӀӀ restorations. The null hypothesis tested in this study was that, there would be no difference in the 2-year clinical performance of all tested bulk-fill resin composites in Class II restorations. Forty patients were enrolled in the study. Each patient received three bulk-fill resin composites Class ӀӀ restorations. One dual-cure and two light-cure bulk-fill resin composites were used for Class ӀӀ restorations following manufacturer's instructions. A universal adhesive was used with all restorations. All restorations were clinically evaluated after 1 week (baseline), 6 months, 12 months, 18 months and finally after 24 months using the FDI World Dental Federation criteria.
Interventions
PROCEDUREFill-Up Class ӀӀ restoration
Bulk-fill technique
PROCEDUREQuiXfil Class ӀӀ restoration
Bulk-fill technique
PROCEDURETetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill Class ӀӀ restoration
Bulk-fill technique
Sponsors
Mansoura University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)
Masking description
Except the investigator, the participants and the two clinical examiners were blinded to the type of bulk-fill resin composite applied in each tooth (a double-blinded clinical trial).
Intervention model description
Each patient received three Class ӀӀ restorations with the three tested bulk-fill resin composites.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
21 Years to 50 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* each participant should have at least three permanent molars and premolars that need to be treated with Class II restorations due to primary carious lesions. * all participants required to have a full and normal occlusion and to maintain adequate oral hygiene.
Exclusion criteria
General
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Esthetic properties (FDI criteria) | From baseline to 2-year follow-up | Including five parameters (surface luster, margin staining, surface staining, color match & translucency, and esthetic anatomical form). Each parameter is exhibited by five scores (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), score 1 is the best outcome. Three scores for acceptable (1, 2, 3) and two scores for non-acceptable (4 for reparable and 5 for replacement). |
| Functional properties (FDI criteria) | From baseline to 2-year follow-up | Including five parameters (marginal adaptation, occlusal wear, proximal contact, radiographic examination, and fracture of material & retention). Each parameter is exhibited by five scores (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), score 1 is the best outcome. Three scores for acceptable (1, 2, 3) and two scores for non-acceptable (4 for reparable and 5 for replacement). |
| Biological properties (FDI criteria) | From baseline to 2-year follow-up | Including three parameters (post-operative sensitivity, recurrence of caries, and tooth integrity). Each parameter is exhibited by five scores (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), score 1 is the best outcome. Three scores for acceptable (1, 2, 3) and two scores for non-acceptable (4 for reparable and 5 for replacement). |
Countries
Egypt
Outcome results
None listed