| 000 | 03096cam a2200337 a 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | EG-GiCUC | ||
| 005 | 20250223032255.0 | ||
| 008 | 190505s2018 ua dh f m 000 0 eng d | ||
| 040 |
_aEG-GiCUC _beng _cEG-GiCUC |
||
| 041 | 0 | _aeng | |
| 049 | _aDeposite | ||
| 097 | _aPh.D | ||
| 099 | _aCai01.09.03.Ph.D.2018.Om.C | ||
| 100 | 0 | _aOmar Osama Shaalan | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 |
_aClinical evaluation of a self-adhering flowable composite versus flowable composite in conservative class I cavities : _bRandomized controlled trial / _cOmar Osama Shaalan ; Supervised Amira Farid Elzoghby , Eman Abouauf |
| 246 | 1 | 5 |
_aتقييم سريري للكمبوزيت ذاتي اللصق القابل للتسييل في مقابل الكمبوزيت القابل للتسييل في الحفرات السنية المحافظة من الصنف الاول : _bتجربة عشوائية مضبوطة |
| 260 |
_aCairo : _bOmar Osama Shaalan , _c2018 |
||
| 300 |
_a62 P. : _bcharts , facsimiles ; _c25cm |
||
| 502 | _aThesis (Ph.D.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine - Department of Operative Dentistry | ||
| 520 | _aBackground: Self adhering flowable composite (SAFC) minimized the time consuming application procedures encountered with the traditional adhesive systems and restorative materials.Self adhering composite combines the merits of both adhesive and restorative material technologies (8th generation) in a single product, bringing new horizons, and ambitions to restorative procedures. Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of SAFC compared to conventional flowable composite in conservative Class I cavities. Materials andMethods: In a split mouth design, after cavity preparation, 18 patients with conservative Class I cavities received randomly two pairs of restorations, either Vertise{u2122} flow or Filtek{u2122} Z350 XT Flowable combined with Scotchbond{u2122} Universal Etchant and Single Bond Universal, all materials were applied according to the manufacturer{u2019}s instructions. Restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6 months by two calibrated assessors using the modified United States Public Health Service criteria measuring (retention, postoperative hypersensitivity, color match, marginal adaptation, and marginal discoloration).Statistical Analysis: Chi square test was used to compare between flowable composite materials after different follow up periods, Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to explore changes over follow up periods. A value of P {u2264} 0.05wasconsideredstatistically significant.Results: At baseline and 6 months, there was no statistically significant difference between both materials for all tested outcomes | ||
| 530 | _aIssued also as CD | ||
| 653 | 4 | _aComposite versus | |
| 653 | 4 | _aFlowable composite | |
| 653 | 4 | _aSelf adhering flowable composite (SAFC) | |
| 700 | 0 |
_aAmira Farid Elzoghby , _eSupervisor |
|
| 700 | 0 |
_aEman Abouauf , _eSupervisor |
|
| 856 | _uhttp://172.23.153.220/th.pdf | ||
| 905 |
_aNazla _eRevisor |
||
| 905 |
_aShimaa _eCataloger |
||
| 942 |
_2ddc _cTH |
||
| 999 |
_c71799 _d71799 |
||