This clinical study aims to compare bulk-fill and conventional composite resins in cuspal coverage restorations of posterior teeth. The primary outcomes include evaluating wear resistance, fracture incidence, and recurrent caries at different follow-up periods. Bulk-fill composites are designed for easier placement in thicker increments, potentially improving clinical efficiency. The study seeks to determine whether bulk-fill materials can provide comparable or superior performance to conventional composites in restoring structurally compromised teeth.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
NA
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
50
This intervention involves performing cuspal coverage restorations in posterior teeth using Shofu Beautifil Bulk Fill composite resin. The composite will be applied in a single increment following the manufacturer's adhesive and placement protocol. Each restoration will be evaluated clinically for wear resistance, fracture incidence, and recurrent caries during the follow-up period.
Future university in egypt
New Cairo, Cairo Governorate, Egypt
Occlusal Wear
0 = No visible wear 1. = Slight wear, no effect on function 2. = Moderate wear, slight anatomical loss 3. = Severe wear needing intervention
Time frame: T0: Baseline examination (1 week after restoration) T1: 6 months T2: 9 months T3: 12 months
Fracture Resistance
1. = Restoration fully intact 2. = Partially fractured but retained 3. = Completely fractured or lost
Time frame: T0: Baseline examination (1 week after restoration) T1: 6 months T2: 9 months T3: 12 months
Caries Recurrence
0 = No recurrent caries at restoration margin 1 = Recurrent caries present and continuous with margin
Time frame: T0: Baseline examination (1 week after restoration) T1: 6 months T2: 9 months T3: 12 months
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.