Follow-up of Indirect Restorations Luted With Different Adhesive Resin Cement
NCT ID: NCT05551481
Last Updated: 2023-10-05
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
40 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2017-02-10
2022-04-10
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Methods: From February 2017 to May 2017, a total of 43 patients (21 men, 22 women; mean age.), received 48 onlay restorations made of laboratory-processed indirect composite (Gradia, GC, Japan). 27 onlay restorations (Group A) were luted using an etch and rinse resin cement (Variolink II, Ivoclar Vivadent) and 22 onlay restorations (Group B) were luted using a self-adhesive resin cement (Relyx U200, 3M ESPE). Patients were followed until May 2019. Two independent calibrated examiners evaluated the restorations at 3-time points: 2 weeks after placement (baseline), 6 months, and then annually, using the modified USPHS/FDI criteria.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Clinical Evaluation of Posterior Indirect Adhesive Restorations
NCT04293770
Clinical Performance of Posterior Indirect Adhesive Restorations
NCT04838483
CLINICAL COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT GLASS IONOMER-BASED RESTORATIVES AND A BULK-FILL RESIN COMPOSITE IN CLASS I CAVITIES: A 48-MONTH RANDOMIZED SPLIT-MOUTH CONTROLLED TRIAL
NCT05559333
Effect of an Additional Hydrophobic Adhesive Layer Application on the Class V Composite Restorations
NCT05635981
Injectable Resin Composite Versus Dual-cured Resin Cement for Cementation of Indirect Onlay Restorations
NCT05954156
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Patients in need of removal of old large amalgam restorations or having extensive caries lesions were recruited for the study. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were as follows:
Adults of at least 18 years of age, with good oral hygiene, having an antagonist tooth in occlusion, being mentally in a good state to provide written consent to participate in the clinical study, and willing to attend the scheduled follow-up appointments. Exclusion criteria included the presence of teeth with severe periodontal problems, high caries risk, and bruxism.
Cavities were prepared according to common principles, which included an occlusal reduction of 1.5-2 mm with a wide isthmus and rounded occlusal-axial angles, and an axial wall of 1.5 mm in thickness. Where possible, the gingival margins were prepared entirely in enamel at the cemento-enamel junction, and cavities for overlays included both buccal and lingual/palatal cusps. Both cavity types (onlays and overlays) were prepared with rounded internal angles, with a divergence of 6-15° between the walls and margins with a 90° cave surface.
Full-arch impressions were made with a single impression/double mixing technique using polyether material (Impregum Penta H Duoso, 3M ESPE, Minn, USA) cavity preparations were provisionalized for 1 week with photo-polymerized provisional material (Clip, Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany). All onlays were definitively inserted within 1 week after impression. After the removal of provisional restorations, the teeth were thoroughly cleaned with a prophylaxis brush and pumice.
After adjustment when needed, the restorations were luted adhesively under a rubber dam, employing a total-etch system in group A. The prepared teeth were initially cleaned with pumice slurry and etched with 35% phosphoric acid gel (Ultra-etch, Ultradent, South Jordan, UT, USA). The dentin adhesive system (Syntac Classic, Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein) was then applied uniform and gently air thinned. The internal surface of the restorations was silanized (Monobond S, Ivoclar Vivadent), waited for its reaction for 60 s and the solvent was evaporated with oil-free compressed air. The onlays and overlays were luted adhesively with etch and rinse, dual cure resin cement (Variolink II, Ivoclar Vivadent). In Group B were luted using a self-adhesive resin cement (Relyx U200, 3M ESPE).
Excess resin cement was removed in all cases with an explorer, a brush, and dental floss interproximally. Each only surface was light-cured for 40 s with a polymerization light (Elipar Highlight, 3M Espe, Seefeld, Germany). After placement and removal of the rubber dam, static and dynamic occlusion was adjusted using fine grit diamond burs, then inlays were finished with disks and strips (Sof-Lex, 3M Dental Products, St. Paul, MN, USA).
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
FACTORIAL
TREATMENT
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
In Group A,(Variolink II, Ivoclar Vivadent).
In Group A, the onlays and overlays were luted adhesively with etch and rinse, dual cure resin cement (Variolink II, Ivoclar Vivadent).
To evaluate the clinical performance of indirect resin composite restorations, which were luted with two different resin cement, in posterior teeth for up to 2 years.
resin cement (Variolink II, Ivoclar Vivadent)-self-adhesive resin cement (Relyx U200, 3M ESPE)
In Group B, (Relyx U200, 3M ESPE).
In Group B the onlays and overlays were luted using a self-adhesive resin cement (Relyx U200, 3M ESPE).
To evaluate the clinical performance of indirect resin composite restorations, which were luted with two different resin cement, in posterior teeth for up to 2 years.
resin cement (Variolink II, Ivoclar Vivadent)-self-adhesive resin cement (Relyx U200, 3M ESPE)
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
To evaluate the clinical performance of indirect resin composite restorations, which were luted with two different resin cement, in posterior teeth for up to 2 years.
resin cement (Variolink II, Ivoclar Vivadent)-self-adhesive resin cement (Relyx U200, 3M ESPE)
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
18 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Istanbul Medipol University Hospital
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
yeldaerdem
Dr.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
yelda erdem hepsenoglu
Role: STUDY_CHAIR
Medipol University
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Yelda Erdem Hepsenoglu
Istanbul, , Turkey (Türkiye)
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
Indirect Resin Composite
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.