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 71 patients and 140 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. 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).
to evaluate and compare the clinical performance and periodontal responses of four commercially available one-step universal adhesives with different formulations in Class II composite restorations over a three-year period.
evaluate the clinical performance of EQUIA Forte ® ( a HVGIC) and Plafique® Bulk Flow composite resin when placed in class II cavities in primary molars.
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.
The aim of the present study is to assess Flowable Giomer Beautifil Flow Plus X (Shofu Dental Corporation, Japan) and Glass-hybrid-added HVGIC, Equia Forte (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) in class II cavities of primary molars regarding the following objectives: The primary objective To evaluate and compare the clinical performance of Flowable Giomer Beautifil Flow Plus X (Shofu Dental Corporation, Japan) and Glass-hybrid-added HVGIC, Equia Forte (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) in restoring class II cavities of primary molars after 3,6, and 12 months. The secondary objective To assess the effect of different independent variables on the treatment outcome of the experimental restorative materials. Research question: Is there a difference in the clinical performance between flowable giomers and highly viscous glass ionomer in restoring class II cavities of primary molars? Null Hypothesis There is no difference in the clinical performance between Flowable Giomer Beautifil Flow Plus X (Shofu Dental Corporation, Japan) and Glass-hybrid-added HVGIC, Equia Forte (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) after one year of follow up.
This study will be conducted to evaluate and compare the clinical performance of Self- Adhesive Bulk fill Resin Composite Versus Conventionally Bonded Bulk fill resin composite in Restoration of Proximal Lesions Over a Period of 18 months Follow-up Examination and selection of all patients will be done according to inclusion and exclusion criteria.A Class II cavity will be prepared after local anesthesia has been given as required. Sectional matricing and wedging will be done. Followed by, placement of restorative material according to the randomization sequence,. For the intervention: The sectional matrix will be applied first , followed by filling of cavity with Advanced Self- Adhesive bulk-fill Resin Composite. (Surefil one™ ,Dentsupply Sirona) in increments of 3-4mm,For the control group: The sectional matrix will be applied first , followed by filling of cavity with bulk-fill resin composite material (GrandioSO x-tra® bulk) in increments of 3-4mm,Clinical evaluation will be done using using USPHS criteria at 6,12 and 18 months follow up.
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.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of using orthodontic bands with glass ionomer cement to arrest or reverse interproximal lesions as a preventive treatment compared to monitoring and oral hygiene. The investigators hypothesize that placing orthodontic bands with glass ionomer cement will arrest and possibly remineralize incipient carious lesions compared to teeth that are being monitored without intervention.
This study investigates whether 1) Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) application using Super Floss can arrest and/or reverse initial interproximal caries on primary molars and 2) whether SDF applied with Super Floss is more effective in arresting or remineralizing initial interproximal lesion in comparison to SDF applied without Super Floss or fluoride varnish applied alone.