An interventional study of Equia Forte and G-aenial Posterior in Dental Caries Class II, sponsored by Hacettepe University. Status unknown at 1 site in Turkey. Open to participants aged 20 Years to 50 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2016-12-13.
Sponsored by Hacettepe University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
The aim of this clinical trial was to compare the clinical performances of a glass ionomer restorative system with a micro hybrid resin based composite in extended sized class II cavities. A total of 100 class 2 lesions were restored with a glass ionomer restorative system (Equia Forte) or a micro hybrid composite (G-aenial Posterior). Restorations were evaluated at baseline and yearly during 6 years according to the modified-USPHS criteria. Data were analyzed with Cohcran's Q and McNemar's tests (p\<0.05).
Since the introduction of glass ionomers many modifications of these materials have been performed over the years. Compared to other permanent filling materials like resin-based composites, glass ionomers show several advantages, such as the ability to adhere to moist enamel and dentin and anti-cariogenic properties such as the long-term fluoride release. So, it was doubtful that glass ionomers represent a capable counterpart of amalgam or resin-based composites in posterior teeth.
1,109 studies on the registry are indexed under Dental Caries; 197 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 50 is below the median of 60 across 916 interventional studies indexed under Dental Caries.
Browse Dental Caries studies →Hacettepe University is the lead sponsor of 983 studies on the registry; 212 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
Placing glass ionomer restorations, the dentin and enamel of cavities were washed, and briefly dried. Equia Forte Fil was injected into the cavity. Isolation was maintained using cotton rolls and a saliva ejector. After the setting time of 2.5 minutes, the restoration was polished wet using high-speed fine diamonds. When the restoration was briefly dried, Equia Forte Coat was applied and photocured for 20 seconds using a photo-curing light.
Other: Equia Forte
After etching procedure, the enamel and dentin were conditioned with G-aenial adhesive using a microtip applicator, left undisturbed for five to 10 seconds, and then dried thoroughly for five seconds with oil-free air under air pressure, G-aenial posterior composite resin was applied with the incremental technique (2 mm thick layers) and light-cured for 20 seconds. Finally, the restoration was shaped with finishing diamonds and silicon instruments.
Other: G-aenial Posterior
Glass ionomer restorative system
Also known as: Glass ionomer restorative system
Micro hybrid composite resin
Also known as: Micro hybrid composite resin
Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using the modified United State Public Health Service criteria regarding marginal adaptation.
Marginal adaptation was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror at 18 inches was performed . A score means the higher score of clinical acceptability while C and D score means that the restoration has failed and needs to be replaced. Alpha 1: Harmonious outline Alpha 2: Marginal gap (max 100μ) with discoloration (removable) Bravo: Marginal gap (\> 100μ) with discoloration (unremovable) Charlie: The restoration is fractured or missed.
Time frame: From baseline to 6 year the change of restorations was evaluated
Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using the modified United State Public Health Service criteria regarding marginal discoloration.
Marginal discolouration was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror at 18 inches was performed . A score means the higher score of clinical acceptability while C score means that the restoration has failed and needs to be replaced. Alpha: No discoloration anywhere along the margin between the restoration and the adjacent tooth. Bravo: Slight discoloration along the margin between the restoration and the adjacent tooth. Charlie: The discoloration penetrated along the margin of the restorative material in a pulpal direction.
Time frame: From baseline to 6 year the change of restorations was evaluated
Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using the modified United State Public Health Service criteria regarding retention rate.
Retention rate was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror at 18 inches was performed . A score means the higher score of clinical acceptability while C and D score means that the restoration has failed and needs to be replaced. Alpha 1:Clinically excellent Alpha 2: Clinically good with slight deviations from ideal performance, correction possible without damage of tooth or restoration Bravo: Clinically sufficient with few defects, corrections or repair of the restoration possible Charlie: Restoration is partially missed Delta: Restoration is totally missed
Time frame: From baseline to 6 year the change of restorations was evaluated
Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using the modified United State Public Health Service criteria regarding anatomic form.
Anatomic form was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror at 18 inches was performed . A score means the higher score of clinical acceptability while C score means that the restoration has failed and needs to be replaced. Alpha 1: Continuous with existing anatomical form Alpha 2: Slightly discontinuous due to some chipping on the proximal ridge Bravo: Discontinuous with existing anatomical form due to material loss but proximal contact still present Charlie: Proximal contact is lost with ridge fracture.
Time frame: From baseline to 6 year the change of restorations was evaluated
Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using the modified United State Public Health Service criteria regarding color change
Colour changes was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror at 18 inches was performed . A score means the higher score of clinical acceptability while C score means that the restoration has failedand needs to be replaced. Alpha: The restoration matches the adjacent tooth structure in color and translucency. Bravo: Light mismatch in color, shade or translucency between the restoration and the adjacent tooth. Charlie: The mismatch in color and translucency is outside the acceptable range of tooth color and translucency.
Time frame: From baseline to 6 year the change of restorations was evaluated
Plan to share: No
This study is status unknown, as verified in Dec 2016. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Hacettepe University