Selective or Stepwise Removal of Deep Caries

July 27, 2015 updated by: Falk Schwendicke, Charite University, Berlin, Germany

Selective or Stepwise Removal of Deep Caries in Deciduous Molars: A Multi-center Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: For treating deep caries lesions, selective or stepwise, i. e. one- and two-step incomplete excavation seems advantageous compared with complete caries removal. However, current evidence regarding the success, as defined by not requiring any re-treatments, or survival of teeth after different excavations is insufficient for definitive recommendation, especially when treating deciduous teeth. Moreover, restoration integrity has not been comparatively analyzed longitudinally, and neither patients', dentists' or parents' preferences nor the clinical long-term costs emanating from both initial and re-treatments have been reported yet.

Our primary hypothesis is that success rates differ significantly between selectively and stepwise excavated teeth. Secondary hypotheses are that restoration integrity is assumed to significantly differ between selectively and stepwise excavated teeth.

Study Overview

Status

Unknown

Conditions

Detailed Description

The treatment of deep caries lesions is associated with significant risks for the pulp, including pulpal exposure and post-operative pulpal complications, which might eventually compromise the retention of the tooth [1]. Moreover, treating deep lesions might be associated with pain and subjective burden both during and after treatment and might generate long-term costs due to re-treatments being required [2, 3].

For deciduous teeth, various treatments for deep lesions have been described: Complete excavation aims at removing all infected and affected carious dentin, with the inherent risk of pulpal exposure. In contrast, stepwise, i. e. two-step excavation leaves carious dentin after the initial excavation step, then seals residual caries under a temporary restoration, and re-enters the cavity in a second step to eventually attempt complete excavation. This approach is thought to facilitate arrest and remineralization of the lesion and to induce development of tertiary dentin, thereby reducing the risk of pulpal exposure and post-operative complications after the second excavation step [4, 5]. Since several studies found sealed residual lesions to be clinically and microbiologically arrested, the need to re-enter was increasingly questioned within the last decade [6]. Selective, i. e. one-step incomplete or partial excavation seals carious dentin under a definitive restoration, omitting any re-entry [7]. Sealing the lesion is thought to deprive residual bacteria from dietary carbohydrates and was found to exert significant antibacterial effects, thus arresting the lesion [8, 9].

However, doubts remain regarding the effects of sealed carious dentin on the long-term quality of the restoration [10]. Moreover, it remains unknown if patients prefer one of both treatments, which might be especially relevant when treating children. Several studies comparing complete with selective or stepwise excavation of deciduous teeth have been published, but only one three-arm study compared selective with stepwise excavation of primary teeth (Tab. 1). In addition, none of these studies assessed patient- or dentists-centered outcomes, i. e. preferences, or analyzed clinically assessed long-term costs emanating from both excavations.

Objectives and Hypotheses The study aims at comparing the success, i. e. the probability of not requiring any re-interventions, and the survival, i. e. the probability of not requiring tooth removal, of selectively versus stepwise excavated vital, non-symptomatic deciduous molars with deep lesions. In addition, we assess the restoration integrity of selectively versus stepwise excavated deciduous molars, evaluate the preference of patients, parents and dentists for one of both strategies, and comparatively assess the costs associated with each strategy.

Our primary hypothesis is that success rates differ significantly between selectively and stepwise excavated teeth. Secondary hypotheses are that restoration integrity is assumed to significantly differ between selectively and stepwise excavated teeth. Moreover, we hypothesize that patients', parents' and dentists' preference is significantly different for selective versus stepwise excavated teeth. Eventually, both initial and long-term costs of excavation methods are supposed to significantly differ.

The planned study is a secondary care-based prospective, multi-center two-arm, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial at three pediatric university dental clinics in Germany. We plan to enroll 300 patients with one or more deeply carious, sensitive and non-symptomatic deciduous molar. One molar per patient will be randomly allocated to receive one of two treatments (selective or stepwise excavation). Total follow-up time will be three years after completion of the initial treatment. Success, survival and restoration integrity will be assessed after one, two and three years. Patients', parents' and dentists' preference will be assessed after each treatment using visual-analogue scale or Likert-rating scales. Costs will be assessed for initial and follow-up treatments and will be based on a micro-costing approach.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Anticipated)

300

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

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

Study Contact

Study Contact Backup

  • Name: Sebastian Paris, Prof. Dr.
  • Phone Number: 332 +4930450562

Study Locations

      • Berlin, Germany, 14197
        • Recruiting
        • CharitéCentrum für Zahn-, Mund- und Kieferheilkunde der Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Abteilung für Kieferorthopädie, Orthodontie und Kinderzahnmedizin
        • Contact:
        • Principal Investigator:
          • Christian Finke, OA Dr.
      • Berlin, Germany, 14197
        • Recruiting
        • CharitéCentrum für Zahn-, Mund- und Kieferheilkunde der Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin; Abteilungen für Zahnerhaltung und Präventive Zahnheilkunde
        • Contact:
        • Contact:
        • Principal Investigator:
          • Falk Schwendicke, OA Dr.
    • Mecklenburg Vorpommern
      • Greifswald, Mecklenburg Vorpommern, Germany, 17487
        • Not yet recruiting
        • Ernst-Moritz-Arndt University of Greifswald, Präventive Zahnmedizin und Kinderzahnheilkunde
        • Contact:
          • Christian Splieth, Prof. Dr.
        • Contact:
          • Ruth Santamaria, Dr.
        • Sub-Investigator:
          • Christian Splieth, Prof. Dr.
        • Sub-Investigator:
          • Ruth Santamaria, Dr.
    • Nordrhein-Westfalen
      • Aachen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany, 52074
        • Recruiting
        • Uniklinik RWTH Aachen; Klinik für Zahnerhaltung, Parodontologie und Präventive Zahnheilkunde
        • Contact:
          • Marina A. Petrou, Dr.
        • Sub-Investigator:
          • Marina A. Petrou, Dr.

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

3 years to 9 years (Child)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Children 3-9 yr
  • Good general health
  • Minimum one active deep (D3) occlusal/occlusal-proximal, one-/two-surface caries lesion

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Participating in other study
  • Plan to move or not resident
  • Systemic disease or general disability
  • Expected limited compliance
  • Known allergy to study material expected exfoliation within 18 month

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: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Selective removal
Caries removal in the periphery including the enamel-dentinal junction will be performed using rose head burs and/or an excavator until hard, dry dentin remains. Pulpo-proximal caries will be removed until leathery, slightly moist and reasonably soft dentin remains. Operating dentists will be calibrated prior to study commencement regarding these criteria using extracted teeth. Moisture control will be performed using cotton rolls and continuous aspiration. Restoration will be performed adhesively, with a self-etching one-bottle adhesive (G-aenial bond, GC, Bad Homburg, Germany) and a compomer material (Dyract, Dentsply Detray, Konstanz, Germany) being used.
Active Comparator: Stepwise removal

Caries removal in the periphery including the enamel-dentinal junction will be performed using rose head burs and/or an excavator until hard, dry dentin remains. Pulpo-proximal caries will be removed until leathery, slightly moist and reasonably soft dentin remains. Operating dentists will be calibrated prior to study commencement regarding these criteria using extracted teeth. Moisture control will be performed using cotton rolls and continuous aspiration. Restoration will be performed adhesively, with a self-etching one-bottle adhesive (G-aenial bond, GC, Bad Homburg, Germany) and a compomer material (Dyract, Dentsply Detray, Konstanz, Germany) being used.

If allocated to stepwise excavation, the second excavation will now be performed as described until only hard, dry dentin remains. Restoration will again be provided adhesively as described.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Success (re-intervention required no/yes)
Time Frame: 36 month
The primary outcome of the study will be success (i. e. not requiring any re-intervention).
36 month

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Survival (tooth removal required no/yes)
Time Frame: 36 months
Secondary outcomes will include survival (i. e. not requiring extraction).
36 months
Restoration integrity (scored as alpha, beta, gamma, delta)
Time Frame: 36 months
Restoration integrity will be assessed via modified USPHS-criteria.
36 months
Patients' subjective assessment of the treatment (0-10)
Time Frame: 0 months (directly after treatment)
Patients' subjective assessment of the treatment will be recorded using visual-analogue scale. For stepwise excavation, assessments will be performed twice and mean VAS-results calculated.
0 months (directly after treatment)
Dentists' subjective assessment (1-6)
Time Frame: 0 months (directly after treatment)
Dentists' subjective assessment of the treatment will be reported using grades from 1 (very good) to 6 (very bad).
0 months (directly after treatment)
Parents' subjective assessment (1-6)
Time Frame: 0 months (directly after treatment)
similar to dentists' assessment
0 months (directly after treatment)
Treatment costs (Euro)
Time Frame: 36 months
Total treatment costs (calculated by combining costs for staff, as assessed by time required for the procedures and the number of personnel involved, and costs for transportation of patients or materials) for both initial and follow-up treatments.
36 months

Collaborators and Investigators

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

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Falk Schwendicke, OA Dr., Chatrite Berlin, Germany
  • Study Chair: Sebastian Paris, Prof. Dr., Charité Berlin, Germany
  • Principal Investigator: Christian Finke, OA Dr., Charité Berlin, Germany
  • Principal Investigator: Marina A. Petrou, Dr., Uniklinic RWTH Aachen, Germany
  • Principal Investigator: Christian Spleith, Prof. Dr., University Greifswald, Germany
  • Principal Investigator: Ruth Santamaria, Dr., University Greifswald, Germany

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.

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

October 1, 2014

Primary Completion (Anticipated)

October 1, 2017

Study Completion (Anticipated)

June 1, 2018

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

August 29, 2014

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 3, 2014

First Posted (Estimate)

September 5, 2014

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimate)

July 28, 2015

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

July 27, 2015

Last Verified

July 1, 2015

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • CARIEX2or1

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 Selective removal

3
Subscribe