Success Rate of Single Versus Two Visit Regenerative Treatment Protocol in Non Vital Mature Anterior Teeth

Evaluation of Success Rate of Non Vital Mature Anterior Teeth With Periapical Lesion Following Single Versus Two Visit Regenerative Treatment Protocol A Randomized Clinical Study

This study evaluates success rate of non vital mature anterior teeth with periapical lesion treated by regenerative endodontic protocol in single visit versus two visit technique.

Patients are randomized into two groups where treatment will be done either in one visit including access, disinfection, placing platelet rich plasma as scaffold and restoration or two visit protocol involving access, disinfection and placing calcium hydroxide as intracanal medicament in first visit followed by a second visit after 3 weeks involving reopening of the tooth, removing intracanal medicament and placing platelet rich plasma as scaffold then restoration. Success rate is defined as absence of subjective signs and symptoms along with healing of periapical lesion

Study Overview

• Status: Unknown
• Conditions: Anterior Teeth; Pulp Necrosis; Periapical Lesion
• Intervention / Treatment: Procedure: Single visit pulp regeneration; Procedure: Two visit pulp regeneration

Detailed Description

Title: Evaluation of Success Rate of Non Vital Mature Anterior Teeth with Periapical Lesion Following Single versus Two Visit Regenerative Treatment Protocol (A Randomized Clinical Trial) Regenerative endodontics can be defined as biologically based procedures designed to replace damaged structures, including dentin and root structures, as well as cells of the pulp-dentin complex.

The majority of endodontic patients are adults, thus the application of the tissue engineering concept to mature teeth could provide a biological treatment modality instead of the conventional one. In fact, several advantages were reported about regenerative procedures in well developed mature teeth. Reconstitution of the neurovascular system in root canals by pulp regeneration will provide pulp tissues with an immune system, which will function as the first line of defense against microbial challenge. Moreover, restoration of pulp dentine complex will protect the tooth during loading and mastication.

Different treatment protocols for pulp regeneration were reported in the literature regarding irrigation (type, concentration and time), intracanal medication, pulpal space barrier, incorporation and lack of scaffolds (blood clot, PRP,PRF, collagen) as well as recall visits.

Rationale for conducting the research and choice of comparators:

Multiple visits protocol has been the commonly used technique in regenerative endodontic procedures. It involves the placement of intracanal medicaments between visits (calcium hydroxide and triple antibiotic paste) which have many drawbacks such as difficulty in removal, tooth discoloration, weakening of the root and tooth loss.

Completing revascularization in one visit has many advantages. First, it reduces the chance of additional bacterial contamination of the space. Second, a single revascularization protocol may overcome the problem of poor patient compliance and reduce the number of appointments needed. Third, it can help to combat potential injury of the tooth and tooth discoloration Unfortunately, up till the moment it is not clear which protocol is the most effective. Thus randomized clinical trials are required to provide plausible answers to this question In the present research the recent single visit regenerative treatment for necrotic mature teeth will be compared to the conventionally used two visit one

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Anticipated): 40
• Phase: Not Applicable

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 15 years to 35 years (ADULT, CHILD)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Genders Eligible for Study: All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• Single canal anterior tooth

  • Mature root
  • Non vital with radiographic evidence of periapical lesion
  • Periapical lesion of average size 2-5mm
  • Positive patient compliance for participation in the study.
  • Patients with good oral hygiene
  • Normal periodontal probing depth ≤ 3 mm

Exclusion Criteria:

• Compromised remaining tooth structure that need post and core build up
• Non restorable teeth
• Vital teeth
• Radiographic evidence of external or internal root resorption.
• Roots showing fracture or ankylosis
• Medically compromised patients
• Pregnant women
• Greater than grade I mobility or periodontal probing depth greater than 3mm
• Immature tooth
• Patients with pain, swelling or fistula tracts

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: TREATMENT
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Interventional Model: PARALLEL
• Masking: SINGLE

Number of Arms

2

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
EXPERIMENTAL: Single visit pulp regeneration; Regenerative endodontic procedure not involving placement of intracanal medicament will be done in single visit	Procedure: Single visit pulp regeneration; Access cavity, disinfection, preparing and injecting platelet rich plasma, and restoring the tooth all done in one visit.
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR: Two visit pulp regeneration; Regenerative endodontic procedure involving placing intracanal medicament will be done in two visit	Procedure: Two visit pulp regeneration; first visit : access, disinfection and placing calcium hydroxide as intracanal medicament second visit: re opening of tooth, preparing and injecting platelet rich plasma and restoring the tooth.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Change in Post operative pain: NRS	absence of pain reported by the patient by numerical rate scale, the 11-point numeric scale ranges from '0' representing one pain extreme (e.g. "no pain") to '10' representing the other pain extreme (e.g. "pain as bad as you can imagine" or "worst pain imaginable")	3, 6, 9 and 12 months
Change in swelling and/or sinus	The presence of swelling or sinus will be reported by a binary question yes/no	3,6,9,12 months
Periapical healing	The existing periapical lesion will be measured by mm by CBCT before intiation of treatment and after one year	12 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Antimicrobial effect	intracanal bacterial count by culture method	before and after complete disinfection either in the same visit or after 3 weeks from the second visit
Sensitivity	Tooth giving respond to electrical pulp tester	3, 6, 9 and 12 months
Discoloration	Recording tooth shade before and after treatment	3, 6, 9 and 12 months

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: Cairo University

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (ANTICIPATED): January 1, 2019
• Primary Completion (ANTICIPATED): September 1, 2020
• Study Completion (ANTICIPATED): December 1, 2020

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: October 14, 2018
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: October 23, 2018
• First Posted (ACTUAL): October 24, 2018

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (ACTUAL): October 24, 2018
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: October 23, 2018
• Last Verified: October 1, 2018

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Keywords: Regeneration, mature teeth, regenerative procedures
• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Pathologic Processes; Stomatognathic Diseases; Tooth Diseases; Dental Pulp Diseases; Necrosis; Dental Pulp Necrosis
• Other Study ID Numbers: Faculty of dentistry 2018

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No