ClinicalTrials.gov
public full text
Public Domain
Can Flowable Bulk Fill Composites be Used in Proximal Area of Class II Restorations
Treatment clinical trial, randomized, controlled, parallel, double-blinded, with two groups, that aims to evaluate the best application strategy when using a flowable bulk fill composite (Opus Bulk Fill Flow APS, FGM, Brazil) in class II cavities. Volunteers will be selected and recruited, following inclusion criteria and pre-established exclusion criteria. All volunteers will be informed and sign a term of clarification and consent. 38 enrolled patients will receive 76 Class II dental restorations, made in two different ways, one from each experimental group. Authors will perform restorations with an incremental composite (Vittra APS - FGM) associated with a bulk-fill flowable composite (Opus Bulk Fill Flow APS - FGM), in class II cavities, exposing (Group BP) or not (Group IP) the bulk fill flowable composite to the cavosurface angle on the proximal wall of the restorations. In both groups, Opus Bulk Fill Flow APS resin will be used in the bulk technique with up to 5mm depth increments, leaving 1 mm in the occlusal for incremental Vittra APS composite resin. Immediate post-operative tooth sensitivity will be evaluated after one week. Restorations will be evaluated every 6 months for pain assessment, shape, fractures, staining or recurrent caries, using FDI scores. To determine in which group each tooth will be enrolled, the authors will randomize the teeth.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Evaluation of Clinical Performance of Bulk Fill Resin Composite Restorations Using Snow Plow Versus Oscillating Packing Technique#854369
- Clinical Performance of Two Different Restorative Materials in Restoring Class II Cavities of Primary Molars#869901
- One-year Clinical Evaluation of Bulk-fill Versus Conventional Incremental Posterior Restoration by FDI Criteria#1103827
- Clinical Performance of a Highly-filled Flowable Composite in Class III Restorations.#1030531
- Clinical Performance of Bioactive Bulk-Fill in Class II Restorations#896772
Record · ID 829583
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive