View clinical trials related to Class II Dental Caries.
Filter by: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).
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.
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.