View clinical trials related to Cavities of Teeth.
Filter by:- Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness in plaque removal of the new device; Dental floss holders and compare the results to the conventional way of flossing. - Methods: Thirty adult male and female participants participated in this randomized, single-use, single-blind clinical study. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups; Group A: Consists of 30 participants in whom Dental Floss Holders (DFH) was constructed to either maxillary or mandibular arch randomly. Group B: Consists of 30 participants in whom conventional flossing (CF) was done to the other arch. Participants attended the first visit for primary impression taking in order to construct the DFH. In the second visit, participants were examined by a blinded examiner to record their plaque index using O'Leary index. Then, they flossed using DFH and CF according to the group they were assigned to. Participants were monitored to ensure proper coverage of all the areas following precise instructions. They then brushed their teeth for approximately 2 minutes using modified bass technique. Next, plaque index was recorded again using the O'leary index. Time was recorded during flossing of each arch. Finally, participants were given a questionnaire to assess their satisfaction of the device. - Results: The differences between the groups showed the DFH group with a 62.8% reduction in whole mouth plaque and 63.3% for proximal plaque compared to 52.9% and 50.4% for the CF group, respectively (p = 0.01). The DFH was more time efficient in removing plaque from the marginal regions with an average time of 00:00:37 in comparison to the CF which averaged in 00:02:07 (p < 0.001). A total of 26 participants (86.7%) preferred using the DFH over the CF. - Conclusion: With the combination of toothbrushing, the Dental Floss Holders is significantly more effective and time efficient than conventional flossing in removing plaque from tooth surfaces.
This research study is looking at a new bond-promoting substance (a dental adhesive called 3M™ Scotchbond™ Universal Plus Adhesive) used between the tooth and dental restoration (filling). This study will evaluate whether Scotchbond™ Universal Plus Adhesive (SBU+) is as effective at bonding dental fillings as Scotchbond™ Universal Adhesive (SBU) for preparation of posterior Class I and Class II restorations in adult patients. Participants must have at least two (2) back teeth that need a filling either on the chewing surface alone (Class I) and/or on the chewing surface and between your teeth (Class II). One tooth will be restored using SBU+ and the other tooth will be restored using SBU adhesive, both filled using Filtek™ Universal Restorative as the filling material.
The aim of the study is to compare the short-term marginal integrity of two preparation techniques for Class I composite restoration using two visual assessment techniques, the FDI World Dental Federation and US Public Health Service assessment criteria. In addition, Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) will be used to assess the marginal integrity of the restoration.
Fluoride is very effective in preventing dental decay (cavities) when applied in the form of a varnish on tooth surfaces. The purpose of this study is to verify if fluoride-releasing primer (OpalSeal) offers more protection against early dental decay (cavity) compared to conventional primer (Transbond XT) during treatment with braces.
To compare a newly developed filling composite to a current filling composite system. Two restorations will be placed in each subject, one using system A and one using system B. The first system listed in the randomization pair will be placed on first tooth (#4-#13), and the second system on 2nd tooth (#4-#13). The same three researchers will be responsible for placement of all the restorations.
This trial is a Phase III, multisite, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, with two parallel groups. The groups are SDF or placebo and they are applied every 6 months. The primary hypothesis of the trial is that SDF is better than placebo for stopping cavities with dentin exposed in baby teeth when assessed at 6 months after initial application.