Indirect Pulp Treatment in Primary Molars (RCT)

August 28, 2019 updated by: Mohamed Farouk Rashed, Cairo University

Evaluation of Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Liner (Vitrebond™) Versus Calcium Hydroxide as Indirect Pulp Treatment Material Used in Deep Carious Lesions in Primary Molars: A Randomized Clinical Trial

This study was conducted to evaluate the clinical and the radiographic success of Dycal and Vitrebond as indirect pulp treatment materials in primary molars.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

Evaluation of calcium hydroxide and resin modified glass ionomer liner clinically and radiographically as indirect pulp treatment materials in deep caries in primary molars.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

88

Phase

  • Phase 4

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

      • Cairo, Egypt, 11553
        • Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine

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

4 years to 8 years (Child)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion criteria:

In compliance with AAPD, 2017 guidelines for pulp therapy "IPT is indicated in a primary tooth with no pulpitis or with reversible pulpitis when the deepest carious dentin is not removed to avoid a pulp exposure. The pulp is judged by clinical and radiographic criteria to be vital and able to heal from the carious insult"

In addition to:

I-Subjects:

  1. Medically free children, their parent(s) accepts to sign the informed consent.
  2. Age range from 4-8 years.

II-Molars:

  1. Presence of at least 1 primary molar with deep carious lesion extending to more than one half of the dentin on radiographic examination (to make the trial regardless of number of carious molars).
  2. Clinically: Normal mobility and normal appearance of gingiva (vital teeth).
  3. Radiographically: Normal roots without physiological resorption, normal lamina dura and normal periodontal membrane space (indicated for IPT).

Exclusion criteria:

I-Subjects:

  1. Uncooperative children.
  2. Parents unable to attend follow up visits (even after explaining the importance of recall visits).

II-Molars:

  1. History of spontaneous pain (to exclude reversible pulpitis).
  2. Clinically: Presence of swelling, sinus, fistula or tooth mobility (to exclude non vital teeth).
  3. Radiographically: Presence of radiolucent lesions at furcation or periapical region or external or internal resorption (to exclude teeth not indicated for IPT).

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: Triple

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: IPT using Dycal (TM )
Indirect pulp treatment; IPT using Dycal (TM ); (2 paste system) by partial caries removal
Partial caries removal and protection of the dental pulp with biocompatible material
Other Names:
  • Indirect pulp capping
Partial caries removal and protection of the dental pulp with biocompatible material
Other Names:
  • Indirect pulp capping
Experimental: IPT using Vitrebond (TM )
Indirect pulp treatment; IPT using Vitrebond (TM );(powder and liquid) by partial caries removal
Partial caries removal and protection of the dental pulp with biocompatible material
Other Names:
  • Indirect pulp capping
Partial caries removal and protection of the dental pulp with biocompatible material
Other Names:
  • Indirect pulp capping

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Number of cases reporting postoperative pain
Time Frame: 12 months
Presence of postoperative pain following dental treatment through patient questionnaire as a sign of clinical failure
12 months
Number of cases reporting swelling
Time Frame: 12 months
Presence of postoperative swelling following dental treatment through visual examination using hand mirror as a sign of clinical failure
12 months
Number of cases reporting sinus
Time Frame: 12 months
Presence of sinus following dental treatment through visual examination using hand mirror as a sign of clinical failure
12 months
Number of cases reporting fistula
Time Frame: 12 months
Presence of fistula following dental treatment through visual examination using hand mirror as a sign of clinical failure
12 months
Number of cases reporting tooth mobility
Time Frame: 12 months
Presence of abnormal tooth mobility following dental treatment through tactile examination using two hand mirrors as a sign of clinical failure
12 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Number of cases reporting external root resorption
Time Frame: 12 months
Occurrence of pathological external root resorption following dental treatment through parallel periapical radiographic examination as a sign of radiographic failure
12 months
Number of cases reporting internal root resorption
Time Frame: 12 months
Occurrence of pathological internal root resorption following dental treatment through parallel periapical radiographic examination as a sign of radiographic failure
12 months
Number of cases reporting furcation involvement
Time Frame: 12 months
Occurrence of pathological internal root resorption following dental treatment through parallel periapical radiographic examination as a sign of radiographic failure
12 months
Number of cases reporting widening of periodontal membrane space
Time Frame: 12 months
Occurrence of widening of periodontal membrane space following dental treatment through parallel periapical radiographic examination as a sign of radiographic failure
12 months
Number of cases reporting periapical radiolucency
Time Frame: 12 months
Occurrence of periapical radiolucency following dental treatment through parallel periapical radiographic examination as a sign of radiographic failure
12 months

Collaborators and Investigators

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

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Shereen E Taha, Professor, Cairo University

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 (Actual)

August 1, 2016

Primary Completion (Actual)

August 1, 2017

Study Completion (Actual)

July 1, 2018

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

August 18, 2018

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

December 7, 2018

First Posted (Actual)

December 10, 2018

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

August 30, 2019

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 28, 2019

Last Verified

August 1, 2019

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

No

IPD Plan Description

final results

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

Yes

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.

Yes

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 Dental Caries

Clinical Trials on Indirect pulp treatment using Dycal (TM)

Subscribe