Clinical Investigation of a New Bulk Fill Composite Resin in the Restoration of Posterior Teeth

NCT02572570 | Terminated Results

• 1 other identifier: 14-3097
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 27
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

Polymerization shrinkage remains one of the primary disadvantages of composite resin restorative materials (tooth-colored fillings). To minimize the effects of polymerization shrinkage in the restorative treatment, the 3M ESPE company has developed a composite resin called Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative. Its decreased polymerization shrinkage and properties allow the material to be inserted in one single increment, expediting treatment. This clinical trial is designed to evaluate the performance of the new bulk fill composite resin in Class II (two-surface posterior) fillings.

Conditions

Dental Restoration Failure of Marginal Integrity; Dental Caries; Unrepairable Overhanging of Dental Restorative Materials; Poor Aesthetics of Existing Restoration; Secondary Dental Caries Associated With Failed or Defective Dental Restorations; Fractured Dental Restorative Materials Without Loss of Materials; Fracture of Dental Restorative Materials With Loss of Material

Keywords

Adult dental care

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (5)

• Restoration Percent Success at Day 1

  The World Dental Federation (FDI) rates 16 categories on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being "Clinically Excellent" and 5 being "Clinically Poor". Scores 1-3 were considered clinically acceptable while scores 4 and 5 were considered failures. Cases were considered successful if each of the 16 following FDI criteria presented an individual score of 3 or less: A.Esthetic Properties Surface lustre \[Item 1\] Surface staining \[Item 2\] Color stability and translucency \[Item 3\] Anatomic form \[Item 4\] B.Functional Properties Fractures and retention \[Item 5\] Marginal adaptation \[Item 6\] Wear \[Item 7\] Contact point/food impact \[Item 8\] Radiographic examination \[Item 9\] Patient's view \[Item 10\] C.Biological Properties Postoperative (hyper)sensitivity and tooth vitality \[Item 11\] Recurrence of caries, erosion, abfraction \[Item 12\] Tooth integrity \[Item 13\] Periodontal response \[Item 14\] Adjacent mucosa \[Item 15\] Oral and general health \[Item 16\]

  Assessed immediately post restoration placement completion

• Restoration Percent Success at Year 1

  The World Dental Federation (FDI) rates 16 categories on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being "Clinically Excellent" and 5 being "Clinically Poor". Scores 1-3 were considered clinically acceptable while scores 4 and 5 were considered failures. Cases were considered successful if each of the 16 following FDI criteria presented an individual score of 3 or less: A.Esthetic Properties * Surface lustre \[Item 1\] * Surface staining \[Item 2\] * Color stability and translucency \[Item 3\] * Anatomic form \[Item 4\] B.Functional Properties * Fractures and retention \[Item 5\] * Marginal adaptation \[Item 6\] * Wear \[Item 7\] * Contact point/food impact \[Item 8\] * Radiographic examination \[Item 9\] * Patient's view \[Item 10\] C.Biological Properties * Postoperative (hyper)sensitivity and tooth vitality \[Item 11\] * Recurrence of caries, erosion, abfraction \[Item 12\] * Tooth integrity \[Item 13\] * Periodontal response \[Item 14\] * Adjacent mucosa \[Item 15\] * Oral and general health \[Item 16\]

  Year 1

• Restoration Percent Success at Year 2

  The FDI rates 16 categories on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being "Clinically Excellent" and 5 being "Clinically Poor". Scores 1-3 were considered clinically acceptable while scores 4 and 5 were considered failures. Cases were considered successful if each of the 16 following FDI criteria presented an individual score of 3 or less: A.Esthetic Properties * Surface lustre \[Item 1\] * Surface staining \[Item 2\] * Color stability and translucency \[Item 3\] * Anatomic form \[Item 4\] B.Functional Properties * Fractures and retention \[Item 5\] * Marginal adaptation \[Item 6\] * Wear \[Item 7\] * Contact point/food impact \[Item 8\] * Radiographic examination \[Item 9\] * Patient's view \[Item 10\] C.Biological Properties * Postoperative (hyper)sensitivity and tooth vitality \[Item 11\] * Recurrence of caries, erosion, abfraction \[Item 12\] * Tooth integrity \[Item 13\] * Periodontal response \[Item 14\] * Adjacent mucosa \[Item 15\] * Oral and general health \[Item 16\]

  Year 2

• Restoration Percent Success at Year 3

  The FDI rates 16 categories on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being "Clinically Excellent" and 5 being "Clinically Poor". Scores 1-3 were considered clinically acceptable while scores 4 and 5 were considered failures. Cases were considered successful if each of the 16 following FDI criteria presented an individual score of 3 or less: A.Esthetic Properties * Surface lustre \[Item 1\] * Surface staining \[Item 2\] * Color stability and translucency \[Item 3\] * Anatomic form \[Item 4\] B.Functional Properties * Fractures and retention \[Item 5\] * Marginal adaptation \[Item 6\] * Wear \[Item 7\] * Contact point/food impact \[Item 8\] * Radiographic examination \[Item 9\] * Patient's view \[Item 10\] C.Biological Properties * Postoperative (hyper)sensitivity and tooth vitality \[Item 11\] * Recurrence of caries, erosion, abfraction \[Item 12\] * Tooth integrity \[Item 13\] * Periodontal response \[Item 14\] * Adjacent mucosa \[Item 15\] * Oral and general health \[Item 16\]

  Year 3

• Restoration Percent Success at Year 5

  The FDI rates 16 categories on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being "Clinically Excellent" and 5 being "Clinically Poor". Scores 1-3 were considered clinically acceptable while scores 4 and 5 were considered failures. Cases were considered successful if each of the 16 following FDI criteria presented an individual score of 3 or less: A.Esthetic Properties * Surface lustre \[Item 1\] * Surface staining \[Item 2\] * Color stability and translucency \[Item 3\] * Anatomic form \[Item 4\] B.Functional Properties * Fractures and retention \[Item 5\] * Marginal adaptation \[Item 6\] * Wear \[Item 7\] * Contact point/food impact \[Item 8\] * Radiographic examination \[Item 9\] * Patient's view \[Item 10\] C.Biological Properties * Postoperative (hyper)sensitivity and tooth vitality \[Item 11\] * Recurrence of caries, erosion, abfraction \[Item 12\] * Tooth integrity \[Item 13\] * Periodontal response \[Item 14\] * Adjacent mucosa \[Item 15\] * Oral and general health \[Item 16\]

  Year 5

Study Arms (1)

Posterior Composite Resin Restoration

EXPERIMENTAL

Participants will receive two commercially available tooth-colored restorative materials used for direct restoration as per manufacturer's instructions.

Device: Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior; Device: Filtek Supreme Ultra

Interventions

Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior DEVICE

Tooth (teeth) affected by dental caries or with an existing defective filling restored using the materials listed (Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior). Procedures done using local anesthesia and following ordinary restorative techniques.

Also known as: Dental filling

Posterior Composite Resin Restoration

Filtek Supreme Ultra DEVICE

Tooth (teeth) affected by dental caries or with an existing defective filling restored using the materials listed (Filtek Supreme Ultra). Procedures done using local anesthesia and following ordinary restorative techniques.

Also known as: Dental filling

Posterior Composite Resin Restoration

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years - 99 Years
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• Be 18 years of age and older
• Have a pair of similar cavities or failed dental fillings in vital permanent posterior teeth requiring treatment
• Be capable of giving written informed consent.

You may not qualify if:

• Have a self-reported history of any adverse reaction to materials of the types to be evaluated
• Have a medical or dental history that could possibly complicate the provision of the proposed treatment and/or influence the behavior and performance of the treatment in clinical service.

Sponsors & Collaborators

• University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill: lead
• 3M ESPE: collaborator

Study Sites (1)

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Dentistry

Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 27599, United States

Location

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Dental Caries

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Tooth Demineralization; Tooth Diseases; Stomatognathic Diseases

Results Point of Contact

• Title: Ricardo Walter, DDS, MS
• Organization: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

walterr@unc.edu

9195373596

Study Officials

• Rick Walter, DDS

  University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Publication Agreements

• PI is Sponsor Employee: Yes

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: NA
• Masking: NONE
• Purpose: TREATMENT
• Intervention Model: SINGLE GROUP
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: SPONSOR

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: September 21, 2015
• First Posted: October 9, 2015
• Study Start: December 1, 2015
• Primary Completion: December 5, 2019
• Study Completion: December 5, 2019
• Last Updated: December 19, 2020
• Results First Posted: December 19, 2020

Record last verified: 2020-10

Locations

US (1)