Class II Dental Restorations
Conditions
Brief summary
The goal of this clinical trial is to evaluate simplified, shade, non-hybrid composite versus conventional multi Shade nano hybrid composite in class two restorations and reevaluate after one year follow up It's aim to answer Which composite has superior, anatomic form, color, match marginal, integrity, postoperative sensitivity, surface texture, and recurrent caries Researcher will compare the two composites And the participants will Have the restorations in posterior teeth and get a follow up after 12 months
Interventions
DEVICESimplified Nano hybrid composite
It's a simplified shade system for dental composite that is nano hybrid with full coverage saline coating and high performance pulverized fillers
DEVICEConventional, multi shade nano, hybrid composite
Traditional, multi shaded nano, hybrid, composite risen
Sponsors
Cairo University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
QUADRUPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 64 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* healthy human * age ranging from18-64 years with a class two posterior restoration * a fairly good oral hygiene * teeth should be indicated for direct composite restoration * teeth with vital pulp no symptoms of irreversible pulpitis * patient who are willing to follow up after 12 months * patient who have signed the informed consent
Exclusion criteria
* people under 18 years old or over 64 years old * people with disabilities * people with bad oral hygiene * patient with systematic disease that could be affecting oral health * cavities reaching the pulp * people with periodontal diseases * patient with parafunctional habits such as bruxism * patient who are allergic to the restoration * patients who are unwilling to follow after 12 months
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Marginal adaptation assessed using modified USPHS criteria | At baseline after six months after 1 year | Marginal adaptation of the restorations will be clinically evaluated using the Modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria by a calibrated examiner. The scoring system includes the following categories: * Alpha (Score = 1): Excellent marginal adaptation, no visible gap * Bravo (Score = 2): Clinically acceptable marginal discrepancy * Charlie (Score = 3): Clinically unacceptable marginal defect requiring replacement The minimum score is 1 (best outcome) and the maximum score is 3 (worst outcome). Lower scores indicate better marginal adaptation, while higher scores indicate poorer marginal adaptation. |
Outcome results
None listed