Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) wet bonding has shown promising results in several in vitro studies. However, there are a lack of clinical trials which prove the advantages of this technique. The aim of the study is to clinically assess the effect of DMSO wet bonding on composite restoration in non carious cervical lesions.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Universal single bond adhesive | Active Comparator |
| |
| DMSO application before Universal single bond adhesive | Experimental |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Universal single bond adhesive | Other | Will be applied and light cured for 20 seconds. |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Fracture of material | Different fracture patterns and retention failures may occur in relation to the type of restoration: cracks, chipping/ delamination, bulk fractures, or incomplete and complete loss of retention. Assessed by Visual examination and short air drying. Criteria set from Clinically excellent/very good(sufficient) (Score 1) to Clinically poor (entirely insufficient)(Score 5) | From treatment to 3-6 months follow up |
| Marginal adaptation | There are different interfaces between the dental hard tissue, restorative material, and adhesive and/or luting resin/cement layer. Each interface can degrade and potentially alter marginal adaptation. In clinical practice, it is impossible to distinguish failures between the different interfaces. Therefore, only the marginal adaptation as such can be assessed by visual examination and short air drying. Scores given depending upon the quality of restoration from Clinically excellent/very good (sufficient) (Score 1) to Clinically poor (entirely insufficient) (Score 5) | From treatment to 3-6 months follow up |
Not provided
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Role | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anchu Rachel Thomas | Contact | 1-700-811-662 | rachel.thomas@manipal.edu.my |
Not provided
Not provided
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 24558525 | Result | Lopez-Frias FJ, Castellanos-Cosano L, Martin-Gonzalez J, Llamas-Carreras JM, Segura-Egea JJ. Clinical measurement of tooth wear: Tooth wear indices. J Clin Exp Dent. 2012 Feb 1;4(1):e48-53. doi: 10.4317/jced.50592. eCollection 2012 Feb. | |
| 36504246 | Result | Hickel R, Mesinger S, Opdam N, Loomans B, Frankenberger R, Cadenaro M, Burgess J, Peschke A, Heintze SD, Kuhnisch J. Revised FDI criteria for evaluating direct and indirect dental restorations-recommendations for its clinical use, interpretation, and reporting. Clin Oral Investig. 2023 Jun;27(6):2573-2592. doi: 10.1007/s00784-022-04814-1. Epub 2022 Dec 12. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D004121 | Dimethyl Sulfoxide |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D013454 | Sulfoxides |
| D013457 | Sulfur Compounds |
| D009930 | Organic Chemicals |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| DMSO | Other | DMSO application on tooth followed by active application of universal single bond adhesive and light cured for 20 seconds. |
|