Clinical trial NCT06894186: Comparison of the Functional Properties of Two Injectable Materials in Posterior Teeth: Randomized Clinical Trial
Official title: Comparison of the Functional Properties of Two Injectable Materials in Posterior Teeth: Randomized Clinical Trial
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Phase: NA
Conditions: Class II Dental Caries
Dental Caries
Injectable Composite
Lead sponsor: Future University in Egypt
Sponsor class: OTHER
First posted: 2025-03-25
Enrollment: 52
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 21
Maximum age (years): 50
Standard ages: ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: yes
Allocation: NA
Intervention model: SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose: TREATMENT

Brief summary: Using two different injectable materials in class II cavities to compare functional properties


Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

* 1-Adult patients (20-50) 2-Good oral hygiene Good oral hygiene (Plaque index ≤2 (Moderate accumulation with plaque in the sulcus)) 3-Patient approval 4-Absence of parafunctional habits and/or bruxism 5-No endodontic treatment or abscess 6- class II either mesial or distal (no MOD cavities)

Exclusion Criteria:

* 1. Systematic disease that may affect participation. 2. Xerostomic patients. 3. Bad oral hygiene (plaque index 2 or 3) 14 4. Heavy smokers 5. Patients undergoing or will start orthodontic treatment 6. Signs and symptoms of irreversible pulpitis.

Primary outcomes:
measure: Marginal adaptation
timeFrame: T1: 1week T2: 6months T3 12 months
measure: 1- fracture of restoration and retention 2- proximal contact poiont
timeFrame: T(Time) T1:1 week hours beasline T2: 6 months T3:12 months
Secondary outcomes:
Other outcomes:
Locations:
Study officials:
References:
citation: Hancer Sarica S, Arslan S, Balkaya H. Comparison of the 2-year clinical performances of class II restorations using different restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig. 2025 Feb 13;29(2):128. doi: 10.1007/s00784-025-06207-6.
citation: Elderiny HM, Khallaf YS, Akah MM, Hassanein OE. Clinical Evaluation of Bioactive Injectable Resin Composite vs Conventional Nanohybrid Composite in Posterior Restorations: An 18-Month Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2024 Aug 1;25(8):794-802. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3737.
citation: Rajabi H, Denny M, Karagiannopoulos K, Petridis H. Comparison of Flexural Strength and Wear of Injectable, Flowable and Paste Composite Resins. Materials (Basel). 2024 Sep 27;17(19):4749. doi: 10.3390/ma17194749.
citation: Neto CCL, das Neves AM, Arantes DC, Sa TCM, Yamauti M, de Magalhaes CS, Abreu LG, Moreira AN. Evaluation of the clinical performance of GIOMERs and comparison with other conventional restorative materials in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Evid Based Dent. 2022 Aug 1. doi: 10.1038/s41432-022-0281-8. Online ahead of print.
citation: Ozer F, Patel R, Yip J, Yakymiv O, Saleh N, Blatz MB. Five-year clinical performance of two fluoride-releasing giomer resin materials in occlusal restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2022 Dec;34(8):1213-1220. doi: 10.1111/jerd.12948. Epub 2022 Aug 7.
citation: Deepika U, Sahoo PK, Dash JK, Baliarsingh RR, Ray P, Sharma G. Clinical evaluation of bioactive resin-modified glass ionomer and giomer in restoring primary molars: A randomized, parallel-group, and split-mouth controlled clinical study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2022 Jul-Sep;40(3):288-296. doi: 10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_139_22.
citation: 2022. Flowable GIOMER Vs Conventional Flowable Composite For Retention And Prevention Of Caries Recurrence When Used As Sealants For Initially Demineralized Fissures. A Randomized Clinical Trial. Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results. (Nov. 2022), 3257 3263
citation: Badr C, Spagnuolo G, Amenta F, Khairallah C, Mahdi SS, Daher E, Battineni G, Baba NZ, Zogheib T, Qasim SSB, Daher T, Chintalapudi N, Zogheib CM. A Two-Year Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Performance of a Nanohybrid Composite Resin to a Flowable Composite Resin. J Funct Biomater. 2021 Sep 9;12(3):51. doi: 10.3390/jfb12030051.
citation: Kitasako Y, Sadr A, Burrow MF, Tagami J. Thirty-six month clinical evaluation of a highly filled flowable composite for direct posterior restorations. Aust Dent J. 2016 Sep;61(3):366-73. doi: 10.1111/adj.12387.
citation: Kramer N, Reinelt C, Frankenberger R. Ten-year Clinical Performance of Posterior Resin Composite Restorations. J Adhes Dent. 2015 Aug;17(5):433-41. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a35010.
citation: Bayraktar Y, Ercan E, Hamidi MM, Colak H. One-year clinical evaluation of different types of bulk-fill composites. J Investig Clin Dent. 2017 May;8(2). doi: 10.1111/jicd.12210. Epub 2016 Jan 22.