Active clinical trials for "Dental Caries"

To evaluate the clinical performance of High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer (EQUIA) versus Silver Diamine Fluoride combined with Potassium Iodide (Riva Star) and Sliver Diamine Fluoride (SDF) under High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer (EQUIA) in deep class I carious lesions, over a period of one year follow-up. The null hypothesis tested in this study, that in deep class I carious lesions, the High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer (EQUIA) versus Silver Diamine Fluoride combined with Potassium Iodide (Riva Star) and Sliver Diamine Fluoride (SDF) under High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer (EQUIA) will show the same clinical performance.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the clinical performance of Giomer and GIC restorations with and without SDF on caries sealing of primary molar teeth

This study is a prospective randomized controlled study of patients who come to the University. The aim is to evaluate the success rate of selective removal of carious tissue in deep lesions of posterior teeth. Three different materials will be used as liners (VitreBond ™Plus, BioDentine™, and Theracal™ LC). Post-operative pain, clinical, and radiographic success will be evaluated at one, two, and five-year follow-up. The null hypothesis is that there will be no statistically significant differences in rates of successful treatment with the three materials used.

The study is randomized controlled trial ...The null hypothesis suggests that there is no significant difference between nanosilver fluoride and sodium fluoride with Casein phosphopeptides_amorphous calcium phosphate in the remineralization of dental caries.

This study aims to compare the clinical performance of conserved chalky white demineralized enamel margins with total removal of demineralized enamel margins in class v cavities restored with composite in patients with acute carious cervical lesions

This is a double blinded, split mouth, randomized clinical study that evaluated the performance of a glass hybrid restorative material in class III lesions. The lesions will be restored with glass hybrid restorative (Equia Forte) or anterior composite resin (G-aenial Anterior). Restorations will be evaluated after 24 months according to FDI criteria and the data will be analyzed.

Class V carious lesions will be restored using either Resin modified glass ionomer or Giomer based injectable resin composite.The restorations will be evaluated at baseline and regular recalls of 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 18 months, using modified United States Public Health Service criteria.

Class II caries affects proximal surfaces of premolars and maintain their anatomical proximal contact of tooth, is important to avoid food impaction in the interdental area for protection of periodontium and occurrence of secondary carious lesion.Different types of Matrix band system are used to restore tooth cavities with missing proximal walls, including flat or pre-contoured bands, retainer-fixed circumferential systems, and sectional matrices, and either metal or plastic matrices which produces good contours and contacts for use with amalgam and can also be employed for insertion of composite resin.This study aimed at assessing the influence of different matricing techniques :either sectional matrix or circumferential matrix and the influence of operator experience on reproduction of optimum proximal contacts for posterior proximal resin composite restorations.

The aim of the study is to clinically evaluate the performance of GIOMER based resin composite restorations versus conventional nanohybrid resin composite restorations in complex proximal carious cavities in posterior teeth over 2 years follow up. The null hypothesis will be proposed that there will be no difference in the clinical performance of GIOMER based resin composite restorations versus conventional nanohybrid resin composite restorations in complex proximal carious cavities in posterior teeth over 2 years follow up.

The aim of the present study is to compare between 3D-printed crowns and prefabricated zirconia crowns for restoring pulpally-treated primary molars regarding the following aspects: In vivo: Evaluate the clinical outcome of 3D printed crowns in comparison to prefabricated zirconia crowns in pulpally-treated primary molars as well as parent satisfaction. In vitro: Comparative analysis of fracture resistance and marginal gap of 3D printed crowns and prefabricated zirconia crowns