View clinical trials related to Class II Dental Caries.
Filter by:Materials to be used as permanent filling materials in Class II restorations are still an essential field of study. This study aims to evaluate the 5-year clinical performance of Class II restorations performed with different bulk-fill restorative materials. The study was planned as an observational clinical trial. In the study, Class II restorations performed with Tetric Bulk Fill (TBF) and Filtek Bulk Fill (FBF) composites and Equia Forte Fil (EF) will be evaluated. Fifty-one patients and 119 restorations will be included in the study. Restorations will be assessed in terms of modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria during the 5th year. Cochran Q, Pearson chi-square, and Fisher-Freeman-Halton tests will be used for statistical analysis.
In the study, Class II restorations will be performed with G-aenial Universal Injectable (GC/ Tokyo, Japan), Grandio Flow (VOCO/ Germany), and Clearfil Majesty Flow (Kuraray/ Japan) composites will evaluated. Restorations will be assessed according to modified USPHS criteria in 1st week, 6th months, and 12th months from the placement date. The Chi-square test will used for statistical analysis of the difference between the groups, and the Cochran Q test will used for the significance of the difference between time-dependent changes within each group (p<0.05).
This study aims to evaluate the clinical success of chlorhexidine-containing dentin bonding agent in primary molars with a 12-month follow-up. The research question is: Is there a difference between the clinical evaluation results of deciduous teeth restored with dentin bonding agents containing and not containing chlorhexidine? A total of 40 patients aged 5-9 years with at least two dentin caries in primary molars were included in the study. The study involved a split-mouth design in which the standard bond and chlorhexidine-containing bond as the adhesive agents. Bulk Fill composite was used as the restorative material for the restoration of primary molars with class II cavity. The evaluation of clinical success was performed by a calibrated observer according to the FDI criteria at months 3, 6, 9, and 12 after restoration.
The goal of this clinical trial is to evaluate the clinical performance of Class II restorations of a thermoviscous nanohybrid materials , of a bulk-fill composite resin, and of conventional nanohyribrid bulk-fill composite resins . Class II restorations will be performed in patients using three different restorative materials.And restorations will be evaluated using modified US Public Health Service criteria Resorations will be photograped and restorations will be evaluated for 6,12 months.
This study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of a novel, tooth-colored, self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative, and a conventional bulk-fill composite, for restoring class II cavities.
Participants will be divided into groups. In group A, Composite restoration done using oblique incremental technique. In group B, Bulk-fill technique was used. VAS scoring to evaluate the primary outcome at one day, one week and two weeks.
Class 2 restorations are analyzed to see whether or not the use of modified universal adhesive will result in similar adaptation to conventional universal adhesive.
The aim of this study was evaluating the clinical effectiveness of the hand instrument in conjunction with sectional matrix when applying lateral forces at the contact area during curing to achieve large and tight proximal contacts in posterior teeth.
The aim of the study is to assess the performance of " snow-plow" technique as compared to Bulk Fill technique in restoration of class II cavities.
Successful restoration of cavities in primary molars can be considered challenging. It is different from restoring cavities in permanent molars because factors such as the level of co-operation of the child and the handling properties and setting time of the restorative material will have some influence on the success rate of the restoration. The ideal requirements that a filling material should possess include that it bears the occlusal force, withstands the acidic and bacterial attack, survives in the oral environment in addition to being biocompatible with the oral tissues. In an attempt to achieve this idealism, a new class of restorative materials known as "bioactive materials" has been developed. The concept of bioactive materials was introduced in 1969 and later defined as "one that elicits a specific biological response at the interface of the material which results in the formation of a bond between tissues and the material." An example of bioactive materials is ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE (Pulpdent, USA). These materials are ionic composite resins which combine the biocompatibility, chemical bond and the ability to release fluoride of glass ionomers with the mechanical properties, esthetic and durability of composite resins. Compomer is widely accepted as a standard restorative material for primary dentition for Class I and II cavities. Its range of success rate in Class II restorations in primary molars is 78-96%. Many randomized clinical trials have reported comparable clinical performance to composite resin with respect to color matching, marginal discoloration, anatomical form, marginal integrity and secondary caries. In comparison to glass ionomer and Resin Modified Glass Ionomer, compomers tend to have better physical properties in the primary dentition. However, their cariostatic properties didn't differ significantly from those materials.