search
Back to results

Clinical Performance of Incremental and Bulk Fill Composites in Class II Restorations

Primary Purpose

Dental Caries

Status
Completed
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
United States
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Supreme Universal Restorative
Supreme Flowable Restorative
Bulk Fill Flowable Restorative
Sponsored by
3M
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional treatment trial for Dental Caries focused on measuring Class II, molar and premolar, resin composite, adult, restoration

Eligibility Criteria

19 Years - 90 Years (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesAccepts Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  • must have given written informed consent to participate in the trial
  • must need at least three posterior dental fillings
  • replacement restorations due to caries or an esthetic replacement with or without caries are acceptable.
  • must be available for the required post-operative follow-up visits
  • restorations must be in contact with opposing natural or crowned teeth with at least at least one occlusal contact in habitual closure
  • Class II restorations must have at least one proximal contact
  • restorations must have a buccal to lingual/palatal width no greater than 1/3 the distance from buccal to lingual/palatal cusp tips
  • all restorations must Class II with a proximal contact with a natural or artificial tooth

Exclusion Criteria:

  • have severe medical complications (organ transplants, long term antibiotic or steroid treatment, cancer or immunocompromised) and disabilities who may not be able to tolerate the time required to complete the restorations or to provide adequate oral hygiene
  • have xerostomia either by taking medications known to produce xerostomia or those with radiation induced or Sjogren's syndrome patients
  • have chronic periodontitis, rampant caries or poor oral hygiene which may require extraction of the teeth to be restored
  • are unavailable for long term recall
  • cannot tolerate the rubber dam required for isolation of the tooth during preparation and restoration.
  • do not meet all inclusion criteria
  • present with any systemic or local disorders that contra-indicate the dental procedures included in this study
  • have an unstable occlusion
  • have severe bruxing or clenching or in need of TMJ related therapy
  • have teeth with periapical pathology or expected pulp exposures
  • have teeth that are non-vital or that exhibit signs of pulpal pathology
  • are pregnant.

Sites / Locations

  • University of Alabama at Birmingham Dental School

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm 3

Arm Type

Active Comparator

Experimental

Experimental

Arm Label

Universal Composite

Flowable Composite

Bulk Fill Flowable Composite

Arm Description

Supreme Universal Restorative

Supreme Flowable Restorative

Bulk Fill Flowable Restorative

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Percent Acceptable Restorations
Percentage of restorations that survived (percent clinically acceptable per FDI criteria) over 36 months.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Surface Luster
Luster comparable to enamel Slightly dull, not noticeable from speaking distance. Surface is dull but still acceptable if the surface of the restoration is covered with a film of saliva. Surface is rough and not masked by salivary film. Major re-finishing or veneering is necessary and possible. Surface is unacceptably rough which makes it ugly and/or it retains noticeable biofilm (plaque). Improvement by finishing or veneering is not feasible.
Surface Staining
No surface staining. Minor surface staining (under dry conditions) is present but is evenly spread over all the teeth. It does not affect the aesthetic properties because it is generalized and acceptable. Moderate surface staining not noticeable from a speaking distance. Surface staining is present on the restoration but not the tooth and is clearly recognizable from a speaking distance. The aesthetic properties of the dentition are affected. Restoration requires major correction and layering of new material. Surface staining is totally unacceptable/unsightly and the restoration needs to be replaced.
Color Match
Colour and translucency of the restoration have a clinically excellent match with the surrounding enamel and adjacent teeth. There is no difference in shade, brightness or translucency between restoration and tooth. Colour match is clinically acceptable but minor deviations in shade between tooth and restoration are apparent. Colour match is satisfactory; there is a clear deviation in colour match that does not affect aesthetics. Colour match is satisfactory; there is a clear deviation in colour match that does not affect aesthetics. Colour match and/or translucency are clinically unsatisfactory. The restoration displays an unacceptable alteration in colour and/or translucency. Restoration needs replacement.
Fracture of Material and Retention
No fractures / cracks. Small hairline crack. Two or more or larger hairline cracks and/or material chip fracture not affecting the marginal integrity or approximal contact. Material chip fractures which damage marginal quality or approximal contacts. Bulk fractures with partial loss (less than half of the restoration).
Occlusal Wear - Qualitative
Physiological wear equivalent to enamel. Normal wear only slightly different from that of enamel. Different wear rate than enamel but within the biological variation. Wear considerably exceeds normal enamel wear; or occlusal contact points are lost. Wear considerably exceeds normal enamel wear; or occlusal contact points are lost.
Tooth Integrity
Complete integrity. Small marginal enamel fracture (<150 µm) / Hairline crack in enamel (<150 µm) Marginal enamel defect <250µm / Crack <250µm / Enamel chipping Multiple cracks / Major marginal enamel defects; gap > 250 µm or dentine or base exposed Cusp or tooth fracture
Recurrence of Caries, Erosion, Abfraction
No secondary or primary caries Small and localized: Demineralization / Erosion / Abfraction. Larger areas of: Demineralisation / Erosion / Abrasion / abfraction, dentine not exposed. Only preventive measures necessary Caries with cavitation and suspected undermining caries / Erosion in dentine / Abrasion, abfraction in dentine. Localized and accessible can be repaired. Deep caries or exposed dentine that is not accessible for repair of restoration
Margin Adaptation
No clinically detectable gap. Marginal integrity deviates from ideal but could be upgraded to ideal by polishing. Leakage/discoloration is present but limited to border area of margins. Generalized marginal gap >150 µm but <250 µm, easily perceptible on probing but cannot be modified without minor damage to tooth or surrounding tissue, and is not considered to result in long-term negative consequences for tooth or surrounding tissue if left untreated. Presence of several small marginal fractures that are unlikely to cause long-term effects. Localized gap larger than 250 µm, may result in exposure of dentine or base. Repair necessary for prophylactic reasons. Generalized gap larger than 250 µm or restoration is loose but in situ, replacement necessary or large fractures at margins and loss of material is too extensive to be repaired.
Marginal Staining
No marginal staining Minor marginal staining, easily removable. Moderate marginal staining, not aesthetically unacceptable. Pronounced (mainly localized) marginal staining and not removable by polishing; major intervention necessary for improvement. of aesthetics Deep marginal staining (generalized and/or profound), not accessible for intervention.
Proximal Contact Point
Contact is physiological (dental floss can only be inserted into the interdental space under pressure). Contact is slightly too strong but acceptable. Floss or 25 µm metal blade can only be passed through contact with force/pressure. Contact is weak, a 50 µm metal blade can pass through contact area but not a 100 µm blade, or floss passes very easily with only a slight snap effect. There is no indication for removing/repairing restoration and there is no damage to tooth, gingiva or other periodontal structures. There is no cervical caries, inflammation of the gingival papilla through food impaction, or pocket formation. Contact is weak and a 100 µm metal blade can easily pass through. In addition there are signs of damage to tooth (i.e. cervical caries,). Repair is necessary. Contact is weak allowing damage due to food impaction and demonstrating pain/gingivitis requires immediate intervention. Repair is not feasible and replacement is necessary.
Patient's View
Entirely satisfied with aesthetics and function Satisfied with aesthetics and function Minor criticism but no adverse clinical effects. Desire for improvement (aesthetics / function); Reshaping of anatomic form or refurbishing is possible. Completely dissatisfied and / or adverse effects, incl. pain
Post-op Sensitivity
No postoperative hypersensitivity. Normal pulp vitality response. Postoperative hypersensitivity of short duration (less than one week) and no longer present at the baseline assessment. Pulp vitality response normal at baseline assessment (one week after placement). Intense postoperative hypersensitivity of duration greater than one week but less than six-months. Persistent postoperative hypersensitivity. Response to cold stimulus is markedly premature/strong and major intervention is necessary; or there is extremely delayed/weak and unclear or negative sensitivity. Sensitivity level is significantly different from the situation prior to treatment. Negative sensitivity recorded at recall visit despite positive pulp response at baseline, or severe pain is noted. Removal of restoration and immediate root canal treatment is required or the tooth must be extracted.

Full Information

First Posted
April 27, 2016
Last Updated
September 7, 2023
Sponsor
3M
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT02889835
Brief Title
Clinical Performance of Incremental and Bulk Fill Composites in Class II Restorations
Official Title
"Clinical Performance of an Incrementally Placed Highly Filled Composite, an Incrementally Placed Flowable Composite, and a Bulk Filled Composite in Class II Restorations"
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
September 2023
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
March 22, 2016 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
July 3, 2021 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
July 3, 2021 (Actual)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Sponsor
Name of the Sponsor
3M

4. Oversight

Data Monitoring Committee
No

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
This study will examine the clinical performance of Class II restorations over a three year period with 3 composite resins - a conventional composite resin, a flowable composite resin and a bulk placed and cured composite resin.
Detailed Description
Specific Aim: To place three commercially available resin composites in Class II cavity preparations of adult patients, evaluate the resin composite restorations at baseline, 6 months, 1 year, 2 and 3 years using specific criteria defined by International Dental Federation (FDI).

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Dental Caries
Keywords
Class II, molar and premolar, resin composite, adult, restoration

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Single Group Assignment
Model Description
Single group with a split mouth design in which each subject received all three treatments. Of the 53 total subjects, 3 study subjects actually received duplicate treatment, i.e., they received 6 dental restorations.
Masking
Participant
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
53 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Universal Composite
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
Supreme Universal Restorative
Arm Title
Flowable Composite
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Supreme Flowable Restorative
Arm Title
Bulk Fill Flowable Composite
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Bulk Fill Flowable Restorative
Intervention Type
Device
Intervention Name(s)
Supreme Universal Restorative
Intervention Type
Device
Intervention Name(s)
Supreme Flowable Restorative
Intervention Type
Device
Intervention Name(s)
Bulk Fill Flowable Restorative
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Percent Acceptable Restorations
Description
Percentage of restorations that survived (percent clinically acceptable per FDI criteria) over 36 months.
Time Frame
36 Months
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Surface Luster
Description
Luster comparable to enamel Slightly dull, not noticeable from speaking distance. Surface is dull but still acceptable if the surface of the restoration is covered with a film of saliva. Surface is rough and not masked by salivary film. Major re-finishing or veneering is necessary and possible. Surface is unacceptably rough which makes it ugly and/or it retains noticeable biofilm (plaque). Improvement by finishing or veneering is not feasible.
Time Frame
36 Month
Title
Surface Staining
Description
No surface staining. Minor surface staining (under dry conditions) is present but is evenly spread over all the teeth. It does not affect the aesthetic properties because it is generalized and acceptable. Moderate surface staining not noticeable from a speaking distance. Surface staining is present on the restoration but not the tooth and is clearly recognizable from a speaking distance. The aesthetic properties of the dentition are affected. Restoration requires major correction and layering of new material. Surface staining is totally unacceptable/unsightly and the restoration needs to be replaced.
Time Frame
36 Month
Title
Color Match
Description
Colour and translucency of the restoration have a clinically excellent match with the surrounding enamel and adjacent teeth. There is no difference in shade, brightness or translucency between restoration and tooth. Colour match is clinically acceptable but minor deviations in shade between tooth and restoration are apparent. Colour match is satisfactory; there is a clear deviation in colour match that does not affect aesthetics. Colour match is satisfactory; there is a clear deviation in colour match that does not affect aesthetics. Colour match and/or translucency are clinically unsatisfactory. The restoration displays an unacceptable alteration in colour and/or translucency. Restoration needs replacement.
Time Frame
36 Month
Title
Fracture of Material and Retention
Description
No fractures / cracks. Small hairline crack. Two or more or larger hairline cracks and/or material chip fracture not affecting the marginal integrity or approximal contact. Material chip fractures which damage marginal quality or approximal contacts. Bulk fractures with partial loss (less than half of the restoration).
Time Frame
36 Month
Title
Occlusal Wear - Qualitative
Description
Physiological wear equivalent to enamel. Normal wear only slightly different from that of enamel. Different wear rate than enamel but within the biological variation. Wear considerably exceeds normal enamel wear; or occlusal contact points are lost. Wear considerably exceeds normal enamel wear; or occlusal contact points are lost.
Time Frame
36 Month
Title
Tooth Integrity
Description
Complete integrity. Small marginal enamel fracture (<150 µm) / Hairline crack in enamel (<150 µm) Marginal enamel defect <250µm / Crack <250µm / Enamel chipping Multiple cracks / Major marginal enamel defects; gap > 250 µm or dentine or base exposed Cusp or tooth fracture
Time Frame
36 Month
Title
Recurrence of Caries, Erosion, Abfraction
Description
No secondary or primary caries Small and localized: Demineralization / Erosion / Abfraction. Larger areas of: Demineralisation / Erosion / Abrasion / abfraction, dentine not exposed. Only preventive measures necessary Caries with cavitation and suspected undermining caries / Erosion in dentine / Abrasion, abfraction in dentine. Localized and accessible can be repaired. Deep caries or exposed dentine that is not accessible for repair of restoration
Time Frame
36 Months
Title
Margin Adaptation
Description
No clinically detectable gap. Marginal integrity deviates from ideal but could be upgraded to ideal by polishing. Leakage/discoloration is present but limited to border area of margins. Generalized marginal gap >150 µm but <250 µm, easily perceptible on probing but cannot be modified without minor damage to tooth or surrounding tissue, and is not considered to result in long-term negative consequences for tooth or surrounding tissue if left untreated. Presence of several small marginal fractures that are unlikely to cause long-term effects. Localized gap larger than 250 µm, may result in exposure of dentine or base. Repair necessary for prophylactic reasons. Generalized gap larger than 250 µm or restoration is loose but in situ, replacement necessary or large fractures at margins and loss of material is too extensive to be repaired.
Time Frame
36 Months
Title
Marginal Staining
Description
No marginal staining Minor marginal staining, easily removable. Moderate marginal staining, not aesthetically unacceptable. Pronounced (mainly localized) marginal staining and not removable by polishing; major intervention necessary for improvement. of aesthetics Deep marginal staining (generalized and/or profound), not accessible for intervention.
Time Frame
36 Months
Title
Proximal Contact Point
Description
Contact is physiological (dental floss can only be inserted into the interdental space under pressure). Contact is slightly too strong but acceptable. Floss or 25 µm metal blade can only be passed through contact with force/pressure. Contact is weak, a 50 µm metal blade can pass through contact area but not a 100 µm blade, or floss passes very easily with only a slight snap effect. There is no indication for removing/repairing restoration and there is no damage to tooth, gingiva or other periodontal structures. There is no cervical caries, inflammation of the gingival papilla through food impaction, or pocket formation. Contact is weak and a 100 µm metal blade can easily pass through. In addition there are signs of damage to tooth (i.e. cervical caries,). Repair is necessary. Contact is weak allowing damage due to food impaction and demonstrating pain/gingivitis requires immediate intervention. Repair is not feasible and replacement is necessary.
Time Frame
36 Months
Title
Patient's View
Description
Entirely satisfied with aesthetics and function Satisfied with aesthetics and function Minor criticism but no adverse clinical effects. Desire for improvement (aesthetics / function); Reshaping of anatomic form or refurbishing is possible. Completely dissatisfied and / or adverse effects, incl. pain
Time Frame
36 Months
Title
Post-op Sensitivity
Description
No postoperative hypersensitivity. Normal pulp vitality response. Postoperative hypersensitivity of short duration (less than one week) and no longer present at the baseline assessment. Pulp vitality response normal at baseline assessment (one week after placement). Intense postoperative hypersensitivity of duration greater than one week but less than six-months. Persistent postoperative hypersensitivity. Response to cold stimulus is markedly premature/strong and major intervention is necessary; or there is extremely delayed/weak and unclear or negative sensitivity. Sensitivity level is significantly different from the situation prior to treatment. Negative sensitivity recorded at recall visit despite positive pulp response at baseline, or severe pain is noted. Removal of restoration and immediate root canal treatment is required or the tooth must be extracted.
Time Frame
36 Months

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
19 Years
Maximum Age & Unit of Time
90 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: must have given written informed consent to participate in the trial must need at least three posterior dental fillings replacement restorations due to caries or an esthetic replacement with or without caries are acceptable. must be available for the required post-operative follow-up visits restorations must be in contact with opposing natural or crowned teeth with at least at least one occlusal contact in habitual closure Class II restorations must have at least one proximal contact restorations must have a buccal to lingual/palatal width no greater than 1/3 the distance from buccal to lingual/palatal cusp tips all restorations must Class II with a proximal contact with a natural or artificial tooth Exclusion Criteria: have severe medical complications (organ transplants, long term antibiotic or steroid treatment, cancer or immunocompromised) and disabilities who may not be able to tolerate the time required to complete the restorations or to provide adequate oral hygiene have xerostomia either by taking medications known to produce xerostomia or those with radiation induced or Sjogren's syndrome patients have chronic periodontitis, rampant caries or poor oral hygiene which may require extraction of the teeth to be restored are unavailable for long term recall cannot tolerate the rubber dam required for isolation of the tooth during preparation and restoration. do not meet all inclusion criteria present with any systemic or local disorders that contra-indicate the dental procedures included in this study have an unstable occlusion have severe bruxing or clenching or in need of TMJ related therapy have teeth with periapical pathology or expected pulp exposures have teeth that are non-vital or that exhibit signs of pulpal pathology are pregnant.
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Nathaniel Lawson, DDS
Organizational Affiliation
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
University of Alabama at Birmingham Dental School
City
Birmingham
State/Province
Alabama
ZIP/Postal Code
35233-2005
Country
United States

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Plan to Share IPD
No

Learn more about this trial

Clinical Performance of Incremental and Bulk Fill Composites in Class II Restorations

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs