Clinical Trial Details
— Status: Completed
Administrative data
| NCT number |
NCT05913258 |
| Other study ID # |
KAUFD Er:YAG 20230525 |
| Secondary ID |
|
| Status |
Completed |
| Phase |
Phase 3
|
| First received |
|
| Last updated |
|
| Start date |
January 1, 2020 |
| Est. completion date |
March 1, 2022 |
Study information
| Verified date |
June 2023 |
| Source |
King Abdulaziz University |
| Contact |
n/a |
| Is FDA regulated |
No |
| Health authority |
|
| Study type |
Interventional
|
Clinical Trial Summary
Objective: To assess and compare the 2940 nm erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser
versus a conventional rotary treatment during cavity preparation in children with regard to
anxiety level, pain perception, restoration integrity, and bond interface quality.
Materials and Methods: In a randomized, blinded trial using a split-mouth design, forty
(9-12-year-old) children with 80 carious deciduous molars were included. The cavity in one
quadrant was treated conventionally using a bur, while the cavity in the other quadrant was
prepared using an Er:YAG laser. Venham's dental anxiety scale and pulse rate measurement
using a fingertip pulse oximeter were used to evaluate dental anxiety levels. The Wong-Baker
facial pain rating scale and the number of local anesthesia required during both
interventions were further applied to investigate pain perception. At the 1-year follow-up,
clinical examinations was conducted and the integrity of the restorations was clinically
assessed according to the Ryge criteria. Lastly, the restored teeth were extracted and
histologically evaluated for bond interface quality using scanning electronic microscopy.
Description:
Study Design: A randomized, blinded split-mouth study was conducted with a sample of 40
healthy children aged 9 to 12 years (N=40 children) / (n=80 teeth). The children were divided
into two groups randomly. The first group included 20 children who were assigned to receive
the conventional treatment at the first visit and the laser treatment at the second visit
(N=20 children) / (n=40 teeth). The second group was assigned to receive the laser treatment
at the first visit and the conventional treatment at the second visit (N=20 children) / (n=40
teeth). Both groups received the laser and conventional treatment and were assessed for pain
and anxiety during both interventions. After a follow -up period of 1 year, an analysis of
the restorative integrity evaluation was performed using the Ryge criteria. The restored
teeth were extracted according to the normal exfoliation schedule and analyzed for bond
interface quality evaluation.
Study Sample: Study participants were recruited from the patient population at the pediatric
dentistry clinics at King Abdulaziz University Dental Hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Every
patient in the appropriate age range has been examined for class I carious lesions of the
molars, and in patients where these molars were present, the researcher was notified by the
practitioner. The researcher was to make the final decision about the suitability of patients
to be included in the study sample. The researcher explained the study procedures to the
parents of potential subjects, and if they agreed to participate, consent to participate in
the study has been obtained from the parents of the pediatric patients.
Sample Size Calculation: According to the authors' assumptions, a sample size of 31 pairs
will have 80 percent power to detect a difference in proportions of restorations integrity of
0.2 when the proportion of discordant pairs is expected to be 0.21, and the analysis method
is a McNemar's test of equality of paired proportions with a 5% two-sided significance level.
Randomization Procedure: Each patient has undergone conventional caries removal on one
affected molar and laser caries removal on the other. The researcher prepared 80 sealed
envelopes divided into two groups in 2 boxes, each containing 40 envelopes. The first group
was for the treatment procedures randomization, 20 of which contained instructions to perform
conventional caries removal on the first tooth and laser caries removal on the second, and
other 20 contained instructions to use the laser on the first tooth and the rotary bur on the
second. The second group for tooth randomization consisted of 40 envelopes, 20 of which
contained instructions to treat the tooth in the right quadrant first, and 20 of which
contained instructions to treat the tooth in the left quadrant first. The envelopes were
identical from the outside, only the messages inside differed. The subjects, who did not know
the contents of the envelopes, were asked to select two envelopes, one from each group. The
researcher opened them and read the contents to be informed as to which treatment and which
tooth would be performed first.
Treatment Procedure: The conventional treatment and the laser treatment took place at two
separate visits, approximately one week apart, with the order of the treatments to be
determined by the randomization process. The teeth were restored using Clearfil Universal
Bond Quick self-etching primer, bonding resin and Clearfil APX composite resin.
One-Year-Follow-Up: Follow-up took place one year later, at which time clinical examination
was conducted. The integrity of the restorations has been clinically examined. The examiner
did not know which tooth had received which treatment. The restorations were evaluated
according to Ryge criteria; the criteria published by the United States Public Health
Service. The criteria that were measured included: anatomical form, axial contour, marginal
contact, margin discoloration, secondary caries, and visible plaque. Each criterion received
a numerical rating from zero to two (zero to three for some criteria) and a score of Alpha,
Bravo, or Charlie (or Delta for marginal contact and axial contour.
Teeth Extractions: The restored teeth were followed up for two more years and were extracted
whenever it was determined that the root of the successor's tooth was formed (according to
the normal tooth shedding time of the patient). The extracted teeth were evaluated for bond
interface quality.