Comparison of the Functional Properties of Two Injectable Materials in Posterior Teeth: Randomized Clinical Trial

NCT06894186 | Not Yet Recruiting

• 1 other identifier: Restoring class II cavities
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 52
• Locations: 0 countries
• Sites: N/A

Brief Summary

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

Conditions

Class II Dental Caries; Dental Caries; Injectable Composite

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (2)

• Marginal adaptation

  T1: 1week T2: 6months T3 12 months

• 1- fracture of restoration and retention 2- proximal contact poiont

  T(Time) T1:1 week hours beasline T2: 6 months T3:12 months

Study Arms (1)

beautiful flow plus x

EXPERIMENTAL

shofu's beauitifil flow plus x is advanced bioactive material with the adaptability of flowable composite and mechanical properities of hybird composite

Other: Gaenial universal injectable

Interventions

Gaenial universal injectable OTHER

GC Gaenial universal injectable advanced injectable composite with nano sized filler that merge the adaptation of flowable composite and mechanical properties of hybird composite

beautiful flow plus x

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 21 Years - 50 Years
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64)

You may qualify if:

• 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)

You may not qualify if:

• \. 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.

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Future University in Egypt: lead

Related Publications (11)

• 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.

  PMID: 39945899 RESULT

• 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.

  PMID: 39653674 RESULT

• 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.

  PMID: 39410319 RESULT

• 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.

  PMID: 35915167 RESULT

• 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.

  PMID: 35934807 RESULT

• 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.

  PMID: 36260470 RESULT

• 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

  RESULT

• 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.

  PMID: 34564200 RESULT

• 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.

  PMID: 26573239 RESULT

• 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.

  PMID: 26525008 RESULT

• 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.

  PMID: 26800647 RESULT

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Dental Caries

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Tooth Demineralization; Tooth Diseases; Stomatognathic Diseases

Central Study Contacts

Nourhan Elsayed Abdelrhman, BDS

CONTACT

01111001709; Khalilnourhan1@gmail.com

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: NA
• Masking: NONE
• Purpose: TREATMENT
• Intervention Model: SINGLE GROUP
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Principal investigator

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: March 19, 2025
• First Posted: March 25, 2025
• Study Start: March 1, 2025
• Primary Completion: April 1, 2026
• Study Completion: April 1, 2026
• Last Updated: March 25, 2025

Record last verified: 2025-03