Clinical Evaluation of Different Minimal Invasive Treatment Modalities of Mild to Moderate Dental Fluorosis Using A Visual Analog Scale

Dental Fluorosis Clinical Trial

Official title:

Clinical Evaluation of Different Minimal Invasive Treatment Modalities of Mild to Moderate Dental Fluorosis Using A Visual Analog Scale

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT05051748
• Other study ID #: 202/2019
• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: September 8, 2019
• Est. completion date: December 24, 2020

Study information

• Verified date: September 2021
• Source: Suez Canal University
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

This study was conducted for clinical evaluation of the quality of different minimal-invasive treatment modalities and combination treatments in esthetics improvement of mild to moderate fluorosed teeth using two different evaluation methods.

One hundred and sixty fluorosed teeth were included in this study. Prior to the interventions, pre-operative photographs were taken as baseline records. After that teeth were randomly allocated in eight treatment protocols with twenty teeth (n=20) included in each protocol. Protocol one (P1) Opalescence™ boost™ PF 40%. Protocol two (P2) Opalustre™. Protocol three (P3) MI-Paste Plus®. In protocol four (P4) teeth were treated with Opalustre™ followed by Opalescence™ boost™ PF 40%. In protocol five (P5) Opalescence™ boost™ PF 40% was applied followed by MI-Paste Plus®, while in protocol six (P6) Opalustre™ was applied followed by MI-Paste Plus®. Whereas protocol seven (P7) teeth were treated with Opalustre™ followed by Opalescence™ boost™ PF 40% and lastly MI-Paste Plus®. Protocol eight (P8) control.

All teeth were evaluated immediately after treatment (T1), after 14 days (T2), after 3 months (T3) and after 6 months (T4).

They were rated for "improvement in appearance" and "change in white/brown opaque areas" using VAS through two blinded evaluators by comparing photographs of each follow-up time point with baseline. "Patient satisfaction", "tooth sensitivity" and "requirements for further treatments" were recorded by the participant.

Description:

This study was conducted for clinical evaluation of the quality of different minimal-invasive treatment modalities and combination treatments in esthetics improvement of mild to moderate fluorosed teeth using two different evaluation methods.

Materials used in this study were Opalustre™ (microabrasion paste of 6.6% hydrochloric acid and Silicon Carbide), Opalescence™ Boost™ PF 40% (in-office bleaching of 40% hydrogen peroxide) and MI-Paste Plus® (topical remineralizing tooth crème of casein phosphopeptide amorphous calcium fluoride phosphate).

One hundred and sixty fluorosed teeth were included in this study. Prior to the interventions, pre-operative photographs were taken as baseline records. After that teeth were randomly allocated in eight treatment protocols with twenty teeth (n=20) included in each protocol. Protocol one (P1) Opalescence™ boost™ PF 40%. Protocol two (P2) Opalustre™. Protocol three (P3) MI-Paste Plus®. In protocol four (P4) teeth were treated with Opalustre™ followed by Opalescence™ boost™ PF 40%. In protocol five (P5) Opalescence™ boost™ PF 40% was applied followed by MI-Paste Plus®, while in protocol six (P6) Opalustre™ was applied followed by MI-Paste Plus®. Whereas protocol seven (P7) teeth were treated with Opalustre™ followed by Opalescence™ boost™ PF 40% and lastly MI-Paste Plus®. Protocol eight (P8) control.

All teeth were evaluated immediately after treatment (T1), after 14 days (T2), after 3 months (T3) and after 6 months (T4).

They were rated for "improvement in appearance" and "change in white/brown opaque areas" using VAS through two blinded evaluators by comparing photographs of each follow-up time point with baseline. "Patient satisfaction", "tooth sensitivity" and "requirements for further treatments" were recorded by the participant.

Data were collected, checked, revised and organized in tables and figures using Microsoft Excel 2016.Improvement in appearance, change in opacity, tooth sensitivity, patient satisfaction and requirement for further treatment were not normally distributed (p<0.05*) i.e. nonparametric data, accordingly, Freidman's test to differentiate between timepoints and Kruskal-Wallis to compare between treatment protocols were applied at 0.05 level.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 16
• Est. completion date: December 24, 2020
• Est. primary completion date: May 6, 2020
• Accepts healthy volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers
• Gender: All
• Age group: 20 Years to 35 Years

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Each participant had at least 8 teeth with mild to moderate dental fluorosis score 1-4 according to Thylstrup and Fejerskov index.

• Participants of age range 20-35 years old

• Good oral and general health

• Had no caries or restorations on the teeth to be treated

• Ability to return for periodic recalls

Exclusion Criteria:

• Hypersensitive teeth

• Any fixed orthodontic appliance

• Current or previous use of bleaching agents

• A history of allergies to tooth whitening product

• Smoking habits

• Pregnant or lactating women

• Non-vital or teeth with symptoms of pulpitis

• Loss or fracture of maxillary and mandibular anterior teeth

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Dental Fluorosis
• Fluoride Poisoning
• Fluorosis, Dental

Intervention

Other:
• Opalescence™ boost™ PF 40%
40% hydrogen peroxide in-office bleaching
• Opalustre™
6.6% hydrochloric acid and silicon carbide microparticles microabrasion paste
• MI-Paste Plus®
casein phosphopeptide amorphous calcium fluoride phosphate (CPP-ACFP) remineralizing tooth crème

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
Egypt	Faculty of dentistry, Suez canal university	Ismailia

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Suez Canal University

Country where clinical trial is conducted

Egypt, 

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Patient Satisfaction	Participants were asked to score for "patient satisfaction" using VAS ranging from 1 to 7	Six Months