Non-carious cervical lesions are defined as loss of pathological material not associated with caries in the enamel-cement junction of the tooth. The etiology of these lesions has been defined as brush abrasion, acid-induced erosion and abstraction due to microstructure losses due to stress concentration in a particular region of the tooth. These lesions should be restored using minimally invasive techniques. The necessity of restorative treatment is directly related to the size of the lesion, sensitivity and aesthetic requirements. However, restorative procedures are often challenging because the cavity preparation does not provide adequate retention, and often the cervical end margin is positioned under the gingiva. This leads to contamination of the operation site with blood, saliva and gingival fluid. Several restorative options have been proposed for the treatment of cervical caries-free lesions. However, due to their high aesthetic properties, improved adhesive capacity and mechanical properties, composites have been accepted as the most suitable choice. Clinical studies have demonstrated that marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, and roughening methods for retention are the most important factors in the clinical performances of composite restorations in cervical lesions. Therefore, injectable composites with wettability and better adaptability to cavity margins have been introduced. However, the low filler contents of fluid composites and their weak mechanical properties compared to conventional composites have led researchers to doubt their use in caries-free cervical lesions. As a result of the developed material technology, injectable composites with high filler which have reduced polymerization shrinkage have been developed with simplified filler procedure. However, investigators have not encountered any studies investigating which etching technique this material will exhibit better clinical performance and comparing it with traditional pasty composites. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical performance of traditional paste type and injectable composites which will be made by using two different etching techniques.
Age range
18 Years – 70 Years
Sex
ALL
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Bring these to your next appointment. They're a starting point for a shared conversation — not a sign you qualify or a recommendation to enrol.
Generated to help you prepare — always confirm anything about your own eligibility and care with the study team and your doctor.
The trial coordinator is the person who runs the study day to day. These cover the practical side — logistics, costs, and what taking part would actually mean for your life. The study team confirms whether you meet the criteria; these are questions to ask, not a sign you qualify.
A starting point for the conversation — always confirm anything about your own eligibility, costs, and care with the study team and your doctor.
Evaluation the Changes of Surface Luster
Timeframe: 1st day, 1st week,6th month, 1st year
Evaluation the Changes of Retention
Timeframe: 1st day, 1st week,6th month, 1st year
Evaluation the Changes of Surface Staining
Timeframe: 1st day, 1st week,6th month, 1st year
Evaluation the Changes of Color Stability and Translucency
Timeframe: 1st day, 1st week, 6th month, 1st year
Evaluation the Changes of Anatomic Form
Timeframe: 1st day, 1st week, 6th month, 1st year
Evaluation the Changes of Marginal Adaptation
Timeframe: 1st day, 1st week, 6th month, 1st year
Evaluation the Changes of Wear
Timeframe: 1st day, 1st week, 6th month, 1st year
Evaluation the Changes of Patients View
Timeframe: 1st day, 1st week, 6th month, 1st year
Evaluation the Changes of Postoperative (hyper-)sensitivity and tooth vitality
Timeframe: 1st day, 1st week, 6th month, 1st year
Evaluation the Changes of Recurrence of Caries, Erosion, Abfraction
Timeframe: 1st day, 1st week, 6th month, 1st year
Evaluation the Changes of Tooth integrity
Timeframe: 1st day, 1st week, 6th month, 1st year
Evaluation the Changes of Periodontal response
Timeframe: 1st day, 1st week, 6th month, 1st year