- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Clinical Trial NCT06870188
Evaluation of the Clinical Success of Direct Restorations of Endodontically Treated Posterior Teeth in the Presence of Parafunction: A Pilot Study (Fibre)
The aim of this prospective, randomized, parallel-group clinical study is to compare the 6- and 12-month clinical performances of direct composite restorations applied to endodontically treated posterior teeth with or without the use of fiber-reinforced composite material in individuals with parafunctional habits.
Bruxism is a repetitive jaw-muscle activity characterized by clenching and/or grinding of teeth. The possible outcomes of bruxism include wear and/or fractures in the teeth and restorations. Therefore, the choice of restorative methods and materials for restorations in bruxist individuals is of great importance. Direct adhesive restorations are the first treatment option for endodontically treated teeth with no excessive material loss and/or those that have lost vitality due to trauma. Over the past decade, the use of fiber-reinforced materials has been recommended to prevent catastrophic fractures. Fiber-reinforced materials have been developed and introduced to the market based on the idea that a restorative material that distributes or absorbs stress in high-stress areas will protect the underlying tooth structure.
Although there are numerous studies on the mechanical durability of restorative treatments for endodontically treated teeth in cases with parafunctional habits, there are limited clinical studies regarding the clinical performance of these methods.
The study included 32 premolar or molar teeth with Class 1 and Class 2 cavity types and a remaining wall thickness of at least 3 mm, which had undergone endodontic treatment from volunteer participants. The teeth randomly assigned were divided into two groups (n=16): Group 1: fiber-reinforced composite restoration (EverX flow, GC) (FRCR), Group 2: composite restoration (Gneal Posterior, GC) (CR). The restorations were evaluated at 6 and 12 months using the FDI criteria.
Study Overview
Status
Intervention / Treatment
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
Mugla
-
Mentese, Mugla, Turkey, 48000
- Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
- Adult
- Older Adult
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Volunteers aged 18 and above Cases where restoration was performed immediately after the completion of root canal treatment on posterior teeth Endodontically treated posterior teeth that required replacement of the old restoration due to secondary caries or fractures Cases without pulpal symptoms Posterior teeth classified as Class 1 and Class 2 according to cavity classification Teeth with a remaining wall thickness of at least 3 mm Presence of parafunction Teeth with a natural tooth in the opposing arch and adjacent teeth on both proximal sides
Exclusion Criteria:
- Individuals who are not volunteers
- Cases with ongoing pulpal symptoms
- Posterior teeth with cusp loss
- Teeth with root canal filling that is at least 2 mm shorter than the radiographic apex
- Individuals unable to attend periodic follow-up visits
- Individuals with a Gingival Index score greater than 1
- Severe periodontal disease
- Presence of systemic diseases
- Individuals with allergic reactions to any of the materials to be used
- Pregnant or breastfeeding women
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: Double
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / Arm |
Intervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: Fiber-reinforced composite restoration (FRCR)
After the cavity preparation, an adhesive was applied to the tooth, and a short fiber-reinforced flowable composite resin (EverX flow, GC) was used as the dentin replacement material.
It was then covered with posterior composite resin (Gneal Posterior, GC).
|
The study included premolar or molar teeth with Class 1 and Class 2 cavity types and a remaining wall thickness of at least 3 mm, which had undergone endodontic treatment from volunteer participants.
The teeth randomly assigned were divided into two groups: Group 1: fiber-reinforced composite restoration (FRCR), Group 2: composite restoration (CR).
Direct composite restorations with or without fiber reinforced material were applied.
The restorations were evaluated at 6 and 12 months using the FDI criteria.
The restorations were evaluated by two experienced and fully blinded observers according to the functional, esthetic, and biological criteria.
The criteria were scored from 1 to 5 (sufficient/acceptable= score 1 to 3, insufficient/inacceptable but repair possible= score 4, and insufficient/inacceptable but repair not possible/reasonable= score 5).
Scores of 4 and 5 were considered as failure in the restoration.
|
|
Experimental: Composite restoration (CR)
After the cavity preparation, an adhesive was applied to the tooth, and only posterior composite resin material (Gneal Posterior, GC) was used for filling whole of the cavity
|
The study included premolar or molar teeth with Class 1 and Class 2 cavity types and a remaining wall thickness of at least 3 mm, which had undergone endodontic treatment from volunteer participants.
The teeth randomly assigned were divided into two groups: Group 1: fiber-reinforced composite restoration (FRCR), Group 2: composite restoration (CR).
Direct composite restorations with or without fiber reinforced material were applied.
The restorations were evaluated at 6 and 12 months using the FDI criteria.
The restorations were evaluated by two experienced and fully blinded observers according to the functional, esthetic, and biological criteria.
The criteria were scored from 1 to 5 (sufficient/acceptable= score 1 to 3, insufficient/inacceptable but repair possible= score 4, and insufficient/inacceptable but repair not possible/reasonable= score 5).
Scores of 4 and 5 were considered as failure in the restoration.
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
clinical success
Time Frame: 6 and 12 months-follow-up
|
The restorations were evaluated by two experienced and fully blinded observers according to the functional, esthetic and biological criteria according to the FDI criteria.
The criteria were scored from 1 to 5 (sufficient/acceptable= score 1 to 3, insufficient/inacceptable but repair possible= score 4, and insufficient/inacceptable but repair not possible/reasonable= score 5).
Scores of 4 and 5 were considered as failure in the restoration.
|
6 and 12 months-follow-up
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Publications and helpful links
General Publications
- Deliperi S, Bardwell DN. Reconstruction of nonvital teeth using direct fiber-reinforced composite resin: a pilot clinical study. J Adhes Dent. 2009 Feb;11(1):71-8.
- Meyenberg K. The ideal restoration of endodontically treated teeth - structural and esthetic considerations: a review of the literature and clinical guidelines for the restorative clinician. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2013 Summer;8(2):238-68.
- Frater M, Forster A, Kereszturi M, Braunitzer G, Nagy K. In vitro fracture resistance of molar teeth restored with a short fibre-reinforced composite material. J Dent. 2014 Sep;42(9):1143-50. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.05.004. Epub 2014 May 21.
- Carvalho MA, Lazari PC, Gresnigt M, Del Bel Cury AA, Magne P. Current options concerning the endodontically-treated teeth restoration with the adhesive approach. Braz Oral Res. 2018 Oct 18;32(suppl 1):e74. doi: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0074.
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Primary Completion (Actual)
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Keywords
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
- Fiber-reinforced-comp-pilot
- 23/152/02/3/4 (Other Grant/Funding Number: SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROJECTS COORDINATION UNIT OF MUĞLA SITKI KOÇMAN UNIVERSITY RECTORATE)
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
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.