Evaluation of Two Different Methods of Resin Composite Application In Class II Restorations

Damascus University60 enrolled

Overview

Three clinical groups will be evaluated. Each group of patients will undergo one method of Resin Composite application (multi-layer technique 'control group' - bulk-fill Technique - Sonicfill technique). The restored teeth will be followed-up till one year. A comparison is going to be made between the three groups in relation to the modified United Sates Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria of good restorations.

The modified USPHS criteria include the evaluation of seven characteristics of the restorations: color match, marginal integrity, surface texture, wear of both restoration and antagonist, recurrent dental caries, fracture or detachment, and gingivitis around the abutment.

Study Type

INTERVENTIONAL

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Purpose

TREATMENT

Masking

NONE

Enrollment

Conditions

Class II Dental Restorations

Interventions

Bulk fillPROCEDURE

This is one of the composite restoration application techniques

SonicFillPROCEDURE

This is the recent intervention under evaluation

Eligibility

Sex: ALLMin age: 15 YearsMax age: 60 Years

Medical Language ↔ Plain English

Inclusion Criteria: 1. Cooperated patients. 2. Good general health. 3. Good oral hygiene. 4. Aged 15 to 60 years. 5. Class II restoration (upper or lower) 6. Full erupted teeth. 7. Caries value D3 -D4 according to Daignodent. Exclusion Criteria: 1. If the caries value according to Daignodent is less than D3 -D4. 2. If the tooth is partially erupted. 3. Class II box-like cavity only without any extensions. 4. Patient outside the required age range (15-60 years). 5. Bad oral hygiene.

Locations (1)

Department of Operative Dentistry, University of Damascus Dental School

Damascus, Rif-dimashq Governorate, Syria

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

Change in Color Match

Color match 1. The restoration appears to match the shade and translucency of adjacent tooth tissues. 2. The restoration does not match the shade and translucency of adjacent tooth tissues, but the mismatch is within the range of tooth shade. 3. The restoration does not match the shade and translucency of adjacent tooth tissues, and the mismatch is outside the normal range of tooth shade and translucency.

Time frame: Assessment will be done at (T0) within the first hour following composite sitting, (T1) after 3 months, (T2) after six months, (T3) after six months, (T4) at 12 months following application.

Change in Marginal Integrity

Marginal integrity 1. The explorer does not catch when drawn across the surface of the restoration toward the tooth, or, if the explorer does catch, there is no visible crevice along the periphery of the restoration. 2. The explorer catches and there is visible evidence of crevice, into which the explorer penetrates, indicating that the edge of the restoration does not adapt closely to the tooth structure. 3. the explorer penetrates a crevice defect.

Change in Surface Texture

Surface texture: 1. Surface texture is similar to polished enamel as determined by means of a sharp explorer. 2. Surface texture is gritty similar to a surface subject to a white stone or similar to a composite containing supramicron sizes particles. 3. Surface pitting is sufficiently coarse to inhibit the continuous movement of an explorer across the surface.

Change in Restoration Wear

Wear 1. The restoration is continuation of existing anatomic form or is slightly flattened. 2. A surface concavity is evident. 3. There is a loss of restorative substance such that a surface concavity is evident. Replacement or restorative treatment is required.

Data from ClinicalTrials.gov

This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.