View clinical trials related to Dental Caries Class II.
Filter by:This study aims to evaluate the one-year clinical performance of Class II restorations made with high-filling injectable and condensable universal composite resins. The study included 62 patients and 147 restorations. It used G-aenial Universal Injectable (GCI), G-aenial A'CHORD (GCA), Tetric Prime (TP), Filtek Ultimate (FU) composites, and the Clearfil SE Bond adhesive system. GCI only in premolar teeth; GCA, TP, and FU have been used to restore premolar and molar teeth. Restorations were evaluated and scored according to modified USPHS criteria at seven days, six months, and one year. Chi-square and Cochran Q tests were used for statistical analysis (p<0.05).
This study (a double-blinded, prospective, randomized clinical trial) aimed to evaluate 2-year clinical performance of dual- and light-cure bulk-fill resin composites in Class ӀӀ restorations. The null hypothesis tested in this study was that, there would be no difference in the 2-year clinical performance of all tested bulk-fill resin composites in Class II restorations. Forty patients were enrolled in the study. Each patient received three bulk-fill resin composites Class ӀӀ restorations. One dual-cure and two light-cure bulk-fill resin composites were used for Class ӀӀ restorations following manufacturer's instructions. A universal adhesive was used with all restorations. All restorations were clinically evaluated after 1 week (baseline), 6 months, 12 months, 18 months and finally after 24 months using the FDI World Dental Federation criteria.
This randomized clinical trial evaluated the clinical performance of class II resin composite restorations using bulk-fill high-viscosity ormocer versus methacrylate-based with or without a thin layer of bulk-fill low-viscosity (flowable) resin composite liners (BLRC) over 2 years. The null hypotheses in the study were as follows: (1) Different types of matrix structures (ormocer vs. methacrylate) have no effect on the marginal integrity of restorations; (2) A layer of bulk-fill resin compo-site liner of the same category would not affect the marginal or internal adaptation of restorations.
This retrospective study aims to evaluate the clinical performance of posterior multi-surface Class II amalgam (AM) and resin composite (RC) restorations placed by dental students over a five-year period.
Purpose of the Study:This study was to evaluate the 1 week, 1 year safety and effectiveness of dental composite resin (Filtek™ Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative) in restoring Class I and II dental cavities in posterior teeth.
This study will evaluate the clinical performance of glass carbomer cement restorations in restoring proximal lesions in primary molars compared to that of resin modified glass ionomer cement and composite resin restorations. Teeth will be randomly assigned to one of the three restoration groups and the restorations will be evaluated clinically and radiographically every six months.