Skip to content

Clinical Assessment of Viscosity-Modified Composite Resins: Preheated, Sonic Activated, and Flowable Resins in Class V Restorations

Clinical Assessment of Viscosity-Modified Composite Resins: Preheated, Sonic Activated, and Flowable Resins in Class V Restorations

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT07491770
Enrollment
36
Registered
2026-03-24
Start date
2025-03-01
Completion date
2026-03-14
Last updated
2026-03-24

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

Conditions

Class V Restorations, Composite Restoration

Keywords

clinical, preheated, Highly filled flowable, Sonicfill, Composite Resins

Brief summary

The purpose of the 12-month clinical study was to evaluate and compare preheated, sonic-activated, and flowable composite resins used in Class V restorations.

Detailed description

Because of their superior aesthetics, minimal preparation needs, and capacity to adhere to tooth structure, resin composite materials are now frequently utilized in restorative dentistry. Materials with superior mechanical qualities, better handling qualities, and improved clinical performance have been developed as a result of ongoing advancements in composite technology. Viscosity-modulated composite resins have drawn a lot of interest among these developments because they seek to maximize cavity wall adaptability while preserving adequate strength and wear resistance. To enhance the therapeutic performance of composite resins, various methods have been developed to alter their viscosity. One method for improving flow and adaptability to cavity walls prior to polymerization is preheating composite resins, which momentarily lowers viscosity. Sonic-activated composite methods reduce viscosity during installation by using sonic energy, which makes cavity adaption and handling easier. Moreover, highly filled flowable composite resins have been created to increase their mechanical strength in comparison to traditional flowable composites by combining the better flow properties of flowable materials with increased filler content. Thus, the goal of this study was to assess the clinical performance of flowable composite resins that are warmed, sonic-activated, and highly filled when employed in Class V cavities.

Interventions

OTHERPreheated Nanohybrid Composite Resin (x tra fill)

A nanohybrid composite resin preheated prior to placement to improve flowability and adaptation in Class V restorations

OTHERSonic-Activated Nanohybrid Composite Resin (SonicFill 2®, Kerr, USA)

A sonic-activated bulk-fill nanohybrid composite (SonicFill 2®) that reduces viscosity during placement using sonic energy.

OTHERHighly Filled Flowable Composite Resin (G-aenial Universal Flo®, GC Corporation, Japan)

A highly filled flowable composite (G-aenial Universal Flo®) with improved mechanical properties compared to conventional flowables

OTHERConventional Nanohybrid Composite Resin (NanoPaq®, Germany)

A standard nanohybrid composite (NanoPaq®) used according to manufacturer instructions without modification

Sponsors

Tanta University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
25 Years to 40 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Good general and oral health * Vital teeth * Class V cavities with depth ranging from 2 to 3 mm

Exclusion criteria

* Non-vital or restored teeth * Para functional habits (e.g., bruxism) * pregnancy

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
The primary outcome was marginal adaptation12 monthsClinical assessment of marginal adaptation was carried out in accordance with the World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria by two calibrated examiners at baseline and after 6, 9, and 12 months. The restorations were graded based on their compliance with the evaluation criteria as follows: score 1 (clinically excellent), score 2 (clinically satisfactory), score 3 (clinically acceptable), and scores 4 and 5 (clinically unsatisfactory). Clinical success was considered when restorations received scores of 1, 2, or 3, whereas scores of 4 or 5 were regarded as failures. Visual examination of the evaluated parameters was performed using a high-intensity light source, and a magnifying dental loupe was used to enhance observation. Intragroup comparisons of restoration outcomes across different follow-up intervals were analyzed using the Friedman test. Intergroup comparisons among the different restorative materials within the same follow-up period were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. T

Countries

Egypt

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 25, 2026