Most published research on 3D-printed restorative materials is laboratory-based, focusing primarily on mechanical performance and material properties under controlled conditions. While such studies provide important foundational data, they do not fully replicate the complexity of the oral environment. Only a limited number of clinical investigations have directly compared 3D-printed restorations with conventional direct composite restorations in Class II cavities Furthermore, the integration of a digital workflow introduces additional costs and time requirements related to equipment, software, and training. These factors must be justified by demonstrable improvements in clinical outcomes or cost-effectiveness. By evaluating both clinical performance and economic impact, this trial aims to generate practical, real-world evidence that can guide clinicians in selecting appropriate restorative materials and techniques for routine dental practice.
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Number of participants with a change in functional properties of the restoration using (FDI) World Dental Federation clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations
Timeframe: after restoration placement at 1 day (baseline), 6 months,12 months, and 18 months.
Number of participants with a change in Biological properties of the restoration using (FDI) World Dental Federation clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations
Timeframe: after restoration placement at 1 day (baseline), 6 months,12 months, and 18 months.
Number of participants with a change in Esthetic properties of the restoration using (FDI) World Dental Federation clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations
Timeframe: after restoration placement at 1 day (baseline), 6 months,12 months, and 18 months.