Performance of Reinforced 3D-Printed Versus Direct Bulk-Filled Resin Composites for Restoring Extensive Class II Cavities in Vital Molars

March 2, 2026 updated by: Ahmed Reda Abd EL Rahman

Performance of Reinforced 3D-Printed Versus Direct Bulk-Filled Resin Composites for Restoring Extensive Class II Cavities in Vital Molars: A Randomized Clinical Trial

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.

Study Overview

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

50

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

Patient-related:

  • Adults aged 22 to 45 years.
  • Low to moderate caries risk.
  • Normal occlusion.
  • No signs or symptoms of temporomandibular joint disorders.
  • Satisfactory oral hygiene.
  • Medically fit to receive routine restorative dental treatment.

Lesion-related:

  • Permanent molar requiring a compound Class II restoration.
  • Primary carious lesion classified as ICDAS score 5.
  • Presence of an adjacent tooth and a sound opposing tooth in occlusion.
  • No clinical signs or symptoms of irreversible pulpitis in the involved, adjacent, or opposing teeth.
  • No radiographic evidence of periapical pathology.

Exclusion Criteria:

Patient-related:

  • Bruxism.
  • Poor cooperation.
  • Inability or unwillingness to attend follow-up visits.
  • Anticipated travel during the study period.
  • Poor oral hygiene.
  • Chronic or advanced periodontitis.
  • Known allergy to any study materials.
  • Pregnant or breastfeeding women.

Lesion-related:

  • Teeth with visible fractures or cracks.
  • Rampant caries.
  • Defective restorations on adjacent or opposing teeth.
  • Atypical extrinsic staining that may interfere with evaluation.
  • Radiographic signs of apical pathology.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: Bulk-filled resin composite

For restoration of Class II cavity preparations, a sectional metal matrix system (TOR VM, Russia) will be used to properly reestablish proximal anatomy and contact. The system includes a round separation ring and a pre-contoured metal band designed to reproduce natural proximal contours. A properly sized wedge is inserted to ensure optimal gingival adaptation of the matrix band and to prevent overhangs. The cavity is thoroughly rinsed with water before proceeding with adhesive procedures.

Selective enamel etching is performed using 37% phosphoric acid gel applied to enamel margins for 15 seconds, followed by thorough rinsing and gentle air-drying. A universal adhesive system, Tetric N-Bond Universal (Ivoclar Vivadent AG), is then applied in two consecutive layers. Each layer is actively rubbed for 10 seconds, gently air-dried for 5 seconds, and light-cured for 20 seconds to ensure adequate polymerization and bond strength.

Restoration is completed using Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill resin

For restoration of Class II cavity preparations, a sectional metal matrix system (TOR VM, Russia) will be used to properly reestablish proximal anatomy and contact. The system includes a round separation ring and a pre-contoured metal band designed to reproduce natural proximal contours. A properly sized wedge is inserted to ensure optimal gingival adaptation of the matrix band and to prevent overhangs. The cavity is thoroughly rinsed with water before proceeding with adhesive procedures.

Selective enamel etching is performed using 37% phosphoric acid gel applied to enamel margins for 15 seconds, followed by thorough rinsing and gentle air-drying. A universal adhesive system, Tetric N-Bond Universal (Ivoclar Vivadent AG), is then applied in two consecutive layers. Each layer is actively rubbed for 10 seconds, gently air-dried for 5 seconds, and light-cured for 20 seconds to ensure adequate polymerization and bond strength.

Restoration is completed using Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill resin c

Experimental: 3D-printed Ceramic reinforced resin restoration
Tooth preparation for indirect inlay restorations follows conservative restorative principles, with the primary objective of eliminating carious tissue and unsupported enamel while preserving as much healthy tooth structure as possible. The preparation design emphasizes mechanical stability, stress distribution, and optimal seating of the final restoration. Cavity walls are shaped with a slight occlusal divergence of approximately 6-10°, facilitating proper insertion and seating of the inlay without compromising retention. The pulpal floor is prepared flat to enhance resistance form, and all internal line angles are rounded to minimize stress concentration within both the tooth and the restorative material. Cavosurface margins are ideally prepared as supragingival butt-joint margins whenever clinically feasible, promoting periodontal health, improved isolation, and easier finishing procedures.

Tooth preparation for indirect inlay restorations follows conservative restorative principles, with the primary objective of eliminating carious tissue and unsupported enamel while preserving as much healthy tooth structure as possible. The preparation design emphasizes mechanical stability, stress distribution, and optimal seating of the final restoration. Cavity walls are shaped with a slight occlusal divergence of approximately 6-10°, facilitating proper insertion and seating of the inlay without compromising retention. The pulpal floor is prepared flat to enhance resistance form, and all internal line angles are rounded to minimize stress concentration within both the tooth and the restorative material. Cavosurface margins are ideally prepared as supragingival butt-joint margins whenever clinically feasible, promoting periodontal health, improved isolation, and easier finishing procedures.

Cuspal coverage is generally avoided in inlay preparations to maintain maximum tooth integrit

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
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
Time Frame: after restoration placement at 1 day (baseline), 6 months,12 months, and 18 months.

Fracture of material, retention of the restoration, marginal adaptation, occlusal wear, proximal contact utilizing visual examination and radiographic assessment.

For each criterion, one score will be chosen from 5 scores (excellent, good, satisfactory, unsatisfactory & poor).

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
Time Frame: after restoration placement at 1 day (baseline), 6 months,12 months, and 18 months.

(Postoperative hypersensitivity & tooth vitality, Recurrence of caries, erosion & abfraction,Tooth integrity (enamel cracks or tooth fractures),Periodontal response (compared to a reference tooth), Adjacent mucosa, Oral & general health) utilizing visual examination.

For each criterion, one score will be chosen from 5 scores (excellent, good, satisfactory, unsatisfactory & poor).

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
Time Frame: after restoration placement at 1 day (baseline), 6 months,12 months, and 18 months.

(Surface luster, Staining (surface &margin),Color match & translucency & Esthetic anatomical form) utilizing visual examination

For each criterion, one score will be chosen from 5 scores (excellent, good, satisfactory, unsatisfactory & poor).

after restoration placement at 1 day (baseline), 6 months,12 months, and 18 months.

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

  • Abdelaziz MM,Fathy S,Alaraby AA,Shehab WI,Temirek MM
  • Duarte S,Phark JH
  • Balestra D,Lowther M,Goracci C,Mandurino M,Cortili S,Paolone G,Louca C,Vichi A

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Estimated)

February 20, 2026

Primary Completion (Estimated)

September 1, 2027

Study Completion (Estimated)

October 1, 2027

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

February 13, 2026

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

February 20, 2026

First Posted (Actual)

February 24, 2026

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

March 4, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

March 2, 2026

Last Verified

March 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • Cons334

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

UNDECIDED

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Composite Restorations

Clinical Trials on bulk fill composite

Subscribe