10 Clinical Trials for Various Conditions
This study will determine whether placement of composite (white) dental restorations (fillings) increases concentrations of bisphenol A (BPA) and its metabolites in saliva and urine. These compounds have estrogenic-like properties that have raised concerns about their safety. Small amounts of the chemicals can leach out of dental sealants and be detected in saliva soon after the sealants are applied. Dental composites also contain some of these compounds. U.S. Commissioned Corps officers who need fillings as part of their regular dental treatment and who select composite (white) restorations instead of amalgam (metal) may be included in this protocol. Participants are recruited from among officers receiving dental care at the commissioned officers dental clinic in Rockville, Md. Participants complete a 15-minute interview to gather information about their recent diet and eating patterns. They also provide 3 to 4 urine and saliva samples, some collected before their dental restoration and some after treatment.
This randomized clinical trial evaluates the clinical performance of a new two-component self-etch universal adhesive, OptiBond XTR, when applied in non-carious Class V cervical lesions without macromechanical retention (retentive grooves or bevels). The control material is OptiBond FL, a "traditional" etch/prime/bond adhesive with documented clinical performance. Eighty non-carious Class V cervical lesions are divided into two groups to be treated with either OptiBond XTR or OptiBond FL. Both adhesives are applied strictly according to the manufacturer's directions. Herculite Ultra, a nano-hybrid resin-based composite, is used as the restorative material with both adhesives. The restorations will be evaluated at insertion (baseline), 6 months, and 18 months. An optional three-year recall evaluation is also proposed. The investigators hypothesize that both adhesives will have comparable performance.
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.
Polymerization shrinkage remains one of the primary disadvantages of composite resin restorative materials (tooth-colored fillings). To minimize the effects of polymerization shrinkage in the restorative treatment, the 3M ESPE company has developed a composite resin called Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative. Its decreased polymerization shrinkage and properties allow the material to be inserted in one single increment, expediting treatment. This clinical trial is designed to evaluate the performance of the new bulk fill composite resin in Class II (two-surface posterior) fillings.
The objective of this 2-year split mouth comparative study, a randomized controlled study, is to determine whether the simplified placement procedure of the ultra-rapid polymerizing Tetric PowerFlow/ Tetric PowerFill with a reduced light polymerization time (3 s), yields the same clin-ical results as widely used commercially available dental composites (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, Tetric EvoFlow Bulk Fill) requiring up to 40 seconds of light polymerization time.
The purpose of this clinical trial is to measure the clinical outcomes of Tetric PowerFill Class I and II restorations cured in 3 seconds with the Bluephase PowerCure curing unit.
The purpose of this study is to determine whether a new tooth-colored composite material is effective for load-bearing dental fillings.
Study aim is to test whether nano-composite CAD/CAM milled restorations have a similar performance in clinical service to conventional ceramic CAD/CAM restorations.
Study hypothesis: a new, low polymerization stress flowable composite performs no differently to a conventional, highly filled composite filling material when used as a restorative in small cavities in back teeth. Study will evaluate the clinical performance of a low shrinking flowable composite filling material, compared with a conventional, highly filled composite restorative when used to permanently fill small cavities in molar and premolar teeth in adult patients.
The purpose of this study is to compare esthetic, functional and biological properties of two restoration materials used to fill cavities. One material is called "Filtek™ Supreme" which is a traditional tooth colored resin composite that is placed in the cavity in layers and hardened with UV light. The second material is called "SonicFill™ 2," which is a bulk fill composite that uses an ultrasonic hand piece to change the material from a solid into a liquid in order to place it into the cavity. This material can be placed in the cavity in 1 layer, and is hardened using UV light. Both materials have been FDA approved as non-significant risk devices for filling cavities. In each subject, one tooth with a cavity will be randomly selected to receive one filling material, and a second tooth with a cavity will be randomly selected to receive the second material. The fillings will be observed over a two year period to determine clinical acceptability.