Contact Tightness in Restoring Proximal Surfaces in Posterior Teeth
Conditions
Keywords
Zirconomer, Glass Ionomer, Contact tightness, Occlusoproximal cavities, Resin composite, Class II
Brief summary
To achieve an optimal contact area is essential to avoid tooth migration, food impaction, and the occurrence of secondary caries. However, proximal restorations constitute challenge for the professional and tight contact points are difficult to obtain depending not only on tools used, but also on type of restorative material. Current tooth-colored restorative materials are not condensable and there is shrinkage with setting. The aim of this study is to compare the proximal contact tightness of zirconia reinforced glass ionomer versus conventional nanohybrid resin composite when used in class II cavities.
Interventions
PROCEDUREZirconomer
zirconia modified glass ionomer
PROCEDURENanohybrid composite
conventional composite
Sponsors
Cairo University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
19 Years to 35 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
Eligibility Criteria of participants: Inclusion Criteria of participants: * Patients with occlusoproximal caries in molars classified as ICDAS III or IV. * 19-35 years. * Males or Females. * Co-operative patients approving to participate in the trial.
Exclusion criteria
of participants: * Pregnancy. * Disabilities. * Systemic disease or severe medical complications. * Allergic history concerning methacrylate. * Rampant caries. * Heavy smoking. * Xerostomia. * Lack of compliance. * Evidence of severe bruxism, clenching, or temporomandibular joint disorders. b- Eligibility Criteria of teeth: Inclusion Criteria of teeth: * Occlusoproximal caries in molars classified as ICDAS III or IV. * Vital upper or lower posterior teeth with no signs of irreversible pulpitis. * Intact contact with opposing teeth. * Teeth with no previous restorations in other surfaces.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Contact Tightness | baseline, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months and 1 year | Measuring the adequacy of proximal contact restoration using intervention ' zirconomer" versus control which is Nanohybrid resin composite. Heaviness of this contact using Modified USPHS criteria. USPHS criteria are standardized in which a dental floss is used. Contact tightness can have one of three scores: Alpha Bravo Charlie |
Countries
Egypt
Outcome results
None listed