Injectable Bioactive Composite vs Hall Technique for Proximal Cavities in Primary Molars

Clinical Evaluation of Injectable Bioactive Composites vs Hall Technique for Restoring Proximal Cavities in Primary Molars: A Randomized Clinical Trial

This randomized clinical trial compares the survival rate and clinical performance of injectable bioactive giomer composite restorations versus the Hall Technique for managing proximal carious lesions (ICDAS 3-4) in primary molars of children aged 3-8 years over a 12-month follow-up period.

Children aged 3-8 years with proximal carious lesions in primary molars will be randomly assigned to receive either an injectable bioactive giomer restoration (Beautifil Flow Plus X, Shofu) or a Hall Technique preformed metal crown. Clinical outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months using survival rate criteria (Innes et al., 2007) and FDI criteria for biological properties.

Inclusion Criteria:

• • Generally showing cooperative behaviour that could be managed by the operators.

  • Willing to sign the informed consent.
  • Accepts the follow-up period.
  • Moderate to low caries risk according to cariogram application
  • Posterior primary molar with proximal carious lesion with no sign and symptoms of pulpal involvement.
  • Radiographically (bitewing radiograph) extending to the outer1/3 of dentin
  • ICDAS (3) and ICDAS(4).

Exclusion Criteria:

• • Allergy to any restorative materials.

  • Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances.
  • Patients with debilitating systemic diseases.
  • Children with special needs.
  • Teeth with previous restorations.
  • Periapical radiolucencies and sensitivity to axial or lateral percussion.
  • Mobile teeth.
  • External or internal resorption.
  • Cervical carious lesions.