Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up
N/A N=102 Randomized Single-blind Treatment

Clinical Evaluation of Kerr SonicFill™ 2 vs 3M ESPE Filtek™ Supreme Ultra Universal Restorative

Dental Caries

Enrolled (actual)
102
Serious AEs
0.0%
Results posted
Nov 2021
Primary outcome: Primary: Change in Esthetic Properties: Number of Teeth, Rated 1 (Most Desirable Outcome) to 5 (Least Desirable Outcome), in Each Esthetic Category — 25; 25; 2; 2 Teeth

Study Design & Population

Study type
Interventional
Phase
N/A
Interventions
SonicFill™ 2 (Device); Filtek™ Supreme (Device)
Age
Adult, Older Adult · 18+ yrs
Sex
All
Sponsor
Tufts University
Primary completion
Feb 2020

Outcome Measures

OutcomeResultp-value
PRIMARY
Change in Esthetic Properties: Number of Teeth, Rated 1 (Most Desirable Outcome) to 5 (Least Desirable Outcome), in Each Esthetic Category
25; 25; 2; 2; 0; 0
PRIMARY
Change in Functional Properties: Number of Teeth, Rated 1 (Most Desirable Outcome) to 5 (Least Desirable Outcome), in Each Functional Category
27; 26; 0; 1; 1; 0
PRIMARY
Change in Biological Properties: Number of Teeth, Rated 1 (Most Desirable Outcome) to 5 (Least Desirable Outcome), in Each Biological Category
27; 27; 1; 0; 0; 0

Summary

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.

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • Is at least 18 years of age
  • Is willing to provide voluntary written informed consent
  • Is in good medical health and able to tolerate the dental procedures
  • Has at least 1 pair of qualifying molars or premolars that require Class II restorations.
  • Restorations must have a buccal to lingual/palatal width equal to or greater than 1/3 the distance from buccal to lingual/palatal cusp tips
  • Study teeth must be in occlusal function and must also be in contact with the neighboring tooth on at least one surface
  • Study teeth must be vital (i.e., free of clinical signs and symptoms of periapical pathology)

Exclusion Criteria

  • Is currently taking part in an evaluation of other dental restorative materials
  • Has chronic periodontitis or rampant caries
  • Teeth exhibiting clinical signs of periapical pathology
  • Teeth with a history of self-reported preoperative pulpal problems
  • Women who are pregnant (self-reported). It is standard of care to post-pone routine dental procedures and radiographed until after pregnancy.
  • Women who are breast feeding.
  • Known allergy to resin composites or local anesthetics.
  • Abnormal oral soft tissue findings (e.g., open sores, lesions)
  • An employee of the sponsor or members of their immediate family.
  • Condition affecting salivary flow (e.g., salivary gland disorder, Sjögren's Syndrome)
  • Any restorative treatment of the teeth involved in the study in the last 12 months.
  • Are unwilling or unable to have dental radiographs or photographs taken of their dentition and soft tissues
  • Any other condition which is the view of the investigator may affect the ability of a patient to complete the study.
View full record on ClinicalTrials.gov →

Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03032705). Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication.

Back to search