Evaluation of Adhering Flowable Composite With and Without Adhesive Vs Flowable in Cervical Lesions
NCT03859284 · Status: UNKNOWN · Phase: NA · Type: INTERVENTIONAL · Enrollment: 45
Last updated 2020-10-29
Summary
With limited evidence-based information in literature about using self-adhering flowable composite in conservative class V restorations, it was found beneficial to evaluate the newly introduced material using a randomized controlled clinical trial to test the null hypothesis that moist bonding self-adhering flowable composite with and without adhesive system will have the same clinical performance as conventional flowable composite in cervical caries lesions.
Conditions
- Dental Restoration Failure
Interventions
- OTHER
-
flowable resin composite
gold standard
- OTHER
-
self adhering flowable
moist bonding self adhering flowable composite
- OTHER
-
self adhering flowable with adhesive
moist bonding self adhering flowable composite with the aid of an adhesive system.
Sponsors & Collaborators
-
Cairo University
lead OTHER
Study Design
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Purpose
- TREATMENT
- Masking
- SINGLE
- Model
- PARALLEL
Eligibility
- Min Age
- 16 Years
- Max Age
- 55 Years
- Sex
- ALL
- Healthy Volunteers
- Yes
Timeline & Regulatory
- Start
- 2020-06-20
- Primary Completion
- 2021-02-28
- Completion
- 2022-06-01
Countries
- Egypt
Study Locations
More Related Trials
-
Clinical Performance of a One-step Self-etch Adhesive in Non-carious Cervical Lesions at 2 Years
NCT04565938 ·Status: UNKNOWN ·Phase: PHASE2
-
Clinical Assessment of Indirect Restoration Fabricated From Nano Hybrid Composite Blocks Versus Ceramic Blocks in Badly Broken Teeth One Year Follow up
NCT04563624 ·Status: UNKNOWN ·Phase: PHASE1
-
Clinical Performance of Short Fiber Reinforced Flowable Resin Composite Restorations 2y RCT
NCT04720638 ·Status: UNKNOWN ·Phase: NA
-
Clinical Evaluation of Self- Cure Bulk-Fill Resin Composite Versus Conventional Bulk-Fill Resin Composite Versus Conventional Bulk-Fill Resin Composite Clinical Evaluation of Self- Cure Bulk-Fill Resin Composite Versus Conventional Bulk-Fill Resin Composite
NCT06859086 ·Status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Wear Measurement of Opposing Enamel to Milled Resin Matrix Ceramic Versus Bulk Fill Resin Composite After 2 Years
NCT06807125 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
Clinical Evaluation of Three Different Universal Adhesives in Non-carious Cervical Lesions
NCT03415412 ·Status: ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Influences of Gingival Cord Retractor in Retention Rate of Non-carious Cervical Lesions Restorations.
NCT02961049 ·Status: UNKNOWN ·Phase: NA
-
Clinical Evaluation of Self-Adhesive Bulk-Fil Hybrid Composite in Primary Molars
NCT06724939 ·Status: ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
HEMA-free Universal Adhesives for Restoring Non-carious Cervical Lesions
NCT05497583 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
Comparative Evaluation of Class V Restorations
NCT06164418 ·Status: ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Effect of an Additional Hydrophobic Adhesive Layer Application on the Class V Composite Restorations
NCT05635981 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
Bioactive Versus Non-Bioactive Restorative System in Deep Carious Molars
NCT06348953 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
Radiographic Evaluation of Adaptation of Universal Adhesives
NCT05907928 ·Status: ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Clinical Performance of Different Adhesive Strategies With a Universal System in Sclerosed Dentin in NCCL: A Double-blind Randomized Clinical Trial.
NCT05211908 ·Status: UNKNOWN ·Phase: NA
-
Endocrowns in Anterior Teeth: Effect of Cementation Protocols and Restorative Materials on the Clinical Performance of the Restorations
NCT05973292 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: PHASE2
-
Clinical Performance of Fiber Reinforced Composite Versus Microhybrid Composite Restorations
NCT03515265 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
Clinical Performance Of Conserved Chalky White Demineralized Enamel Cavity Margins Versus Totally Removed Carious Margins In Class V Cavities Restored With Composite Resin
NCT05614076 ·Status: UNKNOWN ·Phase: NA
-
Clinical Performance of Onlay Restorations After Cervical Margin Relocation (CMR)
NCT06155773 ·Status: UNKNOWN ·Phase: NA
-
Comparative Evaluation of an Alkasite-based Restorative Material and Two Different Resin Composites
NCT06375837 ·Status: ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Bioactive Glass Air-abrasion and Non-carious Cervical Lesions
NCT04578717 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
Evaluation of the Marginal Integrity of Recent Bulk Fill Flowable Composite vs Glass Ionomer for Carious Cervical Restorations: RCCT
NCT04053530 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
Clinical Evaluation of Bulk-fill Alkasite Restoration Versus Resin Modified Glass Ionomer in Adult With Class V Carious
NCT04716517 ·Status: UNKNOWN ·Phase: NA
-
18-Month Clinical Evaluation of Self-Adhesive Flowable Giomer Compared to Conventional Flowable Giomer in Conservative Occlusal Restorations
NCT06956651 ·Status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Evaluation of Marginal Integrity of Hydroxyapatite Nano-Fiber Reinforced Flowable Composite Versus Conventional Resin-Based Flowable Composite in Initially Demineralized Pits and Fissure: A One Year, Randomized Clinical Trial
NCT03242291 ·Status: UNKNOWN ·Phase: NA
-
Three-Year Clinical Performance of Fiber-reinforced Versus Indirect Resin Composite Posterior Restorations
NCT06803537 ·Status: ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING ·Phase: NA