The aim of the study is to evaluate the clinical performance of injectable universal flowable composite vs conventional resin composite restorations in proximal cavities of posterior teeth. The null hypothesis is proposed that there will be no difference in the clinical performance of injectable universal flowable composite versus conventional resin composite restorations in proximal cavities of posterior teeth. The design for this randomized controlled clinical trial is a superiority framework with parallel groups with equal allocation ratios. The patients are randomly divided into two groups where one group will receive conventional resin composite and the other group will receive injectable universal flowable resin composite. The restorations will be evaluated for any fracture or loss of retention by using prob following Modified USPHS criteria at baseline, 3, 6, 12 month.
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Criteria of restoration evaluation indicating clinical performance.
Timeframe: 12 months