The objective of this 2-year split mouth comparative study, a randomized controlled study, is to determine whether the simplified placement procedure of the ultra-rapid polymerizing Tetric PowerFlow/ Tetric PowerFill with a reduced light polymerization time (3 s), yields the same clin-ical results as widely used commercially available dental composites (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, Tetric EvoFlow Bulk Fill) requiring up to 40 seconds of light polymerization time.
Patients, requiring posterior tooth restorations Class I and II or requesting amalgam restoration replacement, were treated in the clinical investigation. Each patient received two composite restorations in the posterior region.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE
Enrollment
51
Tooth (teeth) affected by dental caries or with an existing defective filling will be restored. Adhese Universal in self-etch mode, was used to prepare the surfaces for the composite fillings. Tetric PowerFill/ Tetric PowerFlow (test group) was cured for 3 s.
Tooth (teeth) affected by dental caries or with an existing defective filling will be restored. Adhese Universal in self-etch mode, was used to prepare the surfaces for the composite fillings. Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill/ Tetric EvoFlow Bulk Fill (control group) were conventionally cured for 10 s per increment.
University of Illinois College of Dentistry
Chicago, Illinois, United States
Number of Teeth Analyzed According to FDI 11 - Postoperative Hypersensitivity
assessed by tests with thermal stimuli and occlusal forces (during biting) determined by VAS (Visual Analog Scale, 0 "No pain at all" - 10 "The worst pain imaginable") following the Fédération dentaire internationale (FDI) criteria on a scale from 1 "very good" to 5 "unacceptable"
Time frame: Baseline
Number of Teeth Analyzed According to FDI 11 - Postoperative Hypersensitivity
assessed by tests with thermal stimuli and occlusal forces (during biting) determined by VAS (Visual Analog Scale, 0 "No pain at all" - 10 "The worst pain imaginable") following the FDI criteria on a scale from 1 "very good" to 5 "unacceptable"
Time frame: 6 Month
Number of Teeth Analyzed According to FDI 11 - Postoperative Hypersensitivity
assessed by tests with thermal stimuli and occlusal forces (during biting) determined by VAS (Visual Analog Scale, 0 "No pain at all" - 10 "The worst pain imaginable") following the FDI criteria on a scale from 1 "very good" to 5 "unacceptable"
Time frame: 12 Month
Number of Teeth Analyzed According to FDI 11 - Postoperative Hypersensitivity
assessed by tests with thermal stimuli and occlusal forces (during biting) determined by VAS (Visual Analog Scale, 0 "No pain at all" - 10 "The worst pain imaginable") following the FDI criteria on a scale from 1 "very good" to 5 "unacceptable"
Time frame: 24 Month
Number of Teeth Analyzed According to FDI 11 - Postoperative Hypersensitivity
assessed by tests with thermal stimuli and occlusal forces (during biting) determined by VAS (Visual Analog Scale, 0 "No pain at all" - 10 "The worst pain imaginable") following the FDI criteria on a scale from 1 "very good" to 5 "unacceptable"
Time frame: 36 Month
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Restoration Quality Evaluation
assessed following the FDI criteria (patient view, tooth vitality, surface luster, surface staining, colour match, material fracture, marginal adaption, occlusal wear and tooth integrity) on a scale from 1 "very good" to 5 "unacceptable"
Time frame: Baseline
Restoration Quality Evaluation
assessed following the FDI criteria (patient view, tooth vitality, surface luster, surface staining, colour match, material fracture, marginal adaption, occlusal wear and tooth integrity) on a scale from 1 "very good" to 5 "unacceptable"
Time frame: 6 Month
Restoration Quality Evaluation
assessed following the FDI criteria (patient view, tooth vitality, surface luster, surface staining, colour match, material fracture, marginal adaption, occlusal wear and tooth integrity) on a scale from 1 "very good" to 5 "unacceptable"
Time frame: 12 Month
Restoration Quality Evaluation
assessed following the FDI criteria (patient view, tooth vitality, surface luster, surface staining, colour match, material fracture, marginal adaption, occlusal wear and tooth integrity) on a scale from 1 "very good" to 5 "unacceptable"
Time frame: 24 Month
Restoration Quality Evaluation
assessed following the FDI criteria (patient view, tooth vitality, surface luster, surface staining, colour match, material fracture, marginal adaption, occlusal wear and tooth integrity) on a scale from 1 "very good" to 5 "unacceptable"
Time frame: 36 Month