Diastema Clinical Trial
Official title:
A Prospective 4-year Clinical Study Evaluating Two Resin Composites on Diastema Closure and Reshaping
Verified date | September 2016 |
Source | Hacettepe University |
Contact | n/a |
Is FDA regulated | No |
Health authority | Turkey: Ethics Committee |
Study type | Interventional |
The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performances of nano-hybrid resin
composite systems used for anterior diastema closure and tooth reshaping at 4 years in
service using FDI Criteria.
Twenty-three patients with diastema problem were enrolled. Nano-hybrid resin composites to
be used on each patient were randomly selected. Thirty-seven teeth (10 patients) were
restored with Filtek-Z550 (3M/ESPE) in combination with Adper™ Single Bond 2 (3M/ESPE) in
Group 1; whereas 39 teeth (13 patients) were restored with Charisma-Diamond (Heraeus Kulzer)
in combination with Gluma2 Bond (Heraeus Kulzer) in Group 2, by two operators. Esthetic,
functional and biological properties of the restorations were evaluated at baseline, 1-4
years using FDI Criteria establishing a score-range of 1-5. The data were evaluated using
the Fisher's Chi-Square (p=0.05).
Status | Completed |
Enrollment | 23 |
Est. completion date | August 2015 |
Est. primary completion date | August 2015 |
Accepts healthy volunteers | Accepts Healthy Volunteers |
Gender | Both |
Age group | 20 Years to 60 Years |
Eligibility |
Inclusion Criteria: - all subjects were required to be at least 18 years old, - able to read and sign the informed consent document, - physically and psychologically able to tolerate conventional restorative procedures, - having no active periodontal or pulpal diseases, - having teeth with good restorations, and - willing to return for follow-up examinations as outlined by the investigators. Exclusion Criteria: - uncontrolled parafunction; - insufficient oral hygiene leading to caries lesions more than twice yearly during the previous 2 years; - being pregnant or nursing; and - having periodontal or gingival disease. |
Allocation: Randomized, Endpoint Classification: Efficacy Study, Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment, Masking: Double Blind (Subject, Investigator), Primary Purpose: Treatment
Country | Name | City | State |
---|---|---|---|
Turkey | Hacettepe University School of Dentistry | Ankara |
Lead Sponsor | Collaborator |
---|---|
Hacettepe University |
Turkey,
Ergin E, Kutuk ZB, Oztas SS, Cakir FY, Gurgan S. 6-Months Clinical Comparison of Two Resin Composites on Diastema Closure. J Dent Res (Spec Iss 94 A): 599, 2015
Type | Measure | Description | Time frame | Safety issue |
---|---|---|---|---|
Primary | Clinical performance of restorations, graded on a 5-point scale, using FDI criteria | This outcome may be classified as "1-Clinically excellent/ very good", "2-Clinically good (after correction, very good)", "3-Clinically sufficient/ satisfactory (minor shortcomings with no adverse effects but not adjustable without damage to the tooth)", "4-Clinically unsatisfactory (repair for prophylactic reasons)", "5-Clinically poor (replacement necessary)" classification of the Esthetic, Functional and Biological properties | Change from baseline to 4 year outcome of restorations were evaluated. | Yes |
Secondary | Surface Luster, graded on a 5-point scale (FDI criteria) | May be classified as "Luster comparable to enamel", "Slightly dull, not noticeable from speaking distance", "Dull surface but acceptable if covered with film of saliva", "Rough surface, cannot be masked by saliva film, simple polishing is not sufficient. Further intervention necessary", "Quite rough, unacceptable plaque retentive surface" | Change from baseline to 4 year outcome of restorations were evaluated. | Yes |
Secondary | Staining margin, graded on a 5-point scale (FDI criteria) | May be classified as "No surface staining", "Minor staining, easily removable", "Moderate surface staining, also present on other teeth, not aesthetically unacceptable", "Surface staining present on the restoration and is unacceptable; major intervention necessary for improvement", "Severe staining and/or subsurface staining (generalized or localized); not accessible for intervention" | Change from baseline to 4 year outcome of restorations were evaluated. | Yes |
Secondary | Colour stability and translucency, graded on a 5-point scale (FDI criteria) | May be classified as "Good colour match no difference in shade and translucency", "Minor deviations", "Clear deviation but acceptable. Does not affect aesthetics", "(Localised) clinically unsatisfactory but can be corrected by repair", "Unacceptable. Replacement necessary" | Change from baseline to 4 year outcome of restorations were evaluated. | Yes |
Secondary | Fractures and Retention, graded on a 5-point scale (FDI criteria) | May be classified as "Restoration retained, no fractures/cracks", "Small hairline crack", "Two or more or larger hairline cracks and/or chipping(not affecting the marginal integrity or proximal contact", "Chipping fractures which damage marginal quality or proximal contacts; bulk fractures with or without partial loss(less than half of the restoration)", "Partial or complete loss of restoration" | Change from baseline to 4 year outcome of restorations were evaluated. | Yes |
Secondary | Marginal Adaptation, graded on a 5-point scale (FDI criteria) | May be classified as "Harmonious outline, no gaps, no discoloration", "Marginal gap (50 µm) or Small marginal fracture removable by polishing", "Gap< 150 µm not removable or Severe small enamel or dentin fractures", "Gap> 250 µm or dentine exposed or Chip fracture damaging margins or Notable enamel or dentine wall fracture", "Filling is loose but in situ" | Change from baseline to 4 year outcome of restorations were evaluated. | Yes |
Secondary | Postoperative Hypersensibility, tooth vitality, graded on a 5-point scale (FDI criteria) | May be classified as "No hypersensitivity, normal vitality", "Low hypersensitivity for a limited period of time, normal vitality", "Premature/slightly more intense or Delayed/weak sensitivity; no subjective complaints, no treatment needed", "Premature/very intense or Extremely delayed/weak with subjective complaints or Negative sensitivity intervention necessary but not replacement", "Very intense, acute pulpitis or no vital. Endodontic treatment is necessary and restoration has to be replaced" | Change from baseline to 4 year outcome of restorations were evaluated. | Yes |
Secondary | Recurrence of Caries, erosion, abfraction, graded on a 5-point scale (FDI criteria) | May be classified as "No secondary or primary caries", "Very small and localized. No operative treatment required", "Larger areas of: Demineralisation or Erosion or Abrasion/abfraction in dentine. Localized and accessible and can be repaired", "Caries with cavitation or Erosion in dentine or Abrasion/abfraction in dentine Localized and accessible and can be repaired", "Deep secondary caries or exposed dentine that is not accessible for repair of restoration" | Change from baseline to 4 year outcome of restorations were evaluated. | Yes |
Secondary | Tooth integrity (enamel cracks), graded on a 5-point scale (FDI criteria) | May be classified as "Complete integrity", "Small margin enamel(<150 µm) or Hairline crack in enamel (<150 µm not probable)", "Enamel split(<250 µm) or Crack< 250 µm, no adverse effects", "Major enamel split (gap>250 µm or dentine or base exposed) or Crack>250 µm (probe penetrates)", "Cusp or tooth fracture" | Change from baseline to 4 year outcome of restorations were evaluated. | Yes |
Status | Clinical Trial | Phase | |
---|---|---|---|
Not yet recruiting |
NCT03136276 -
One Year Clinical Evaluation of IPS Empress CAD Versus Polished Celtra Duo Ceramic Laminate Veneers
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT04515069 -
Survival of Hybrid Laminate Veneers Using Two Different Tooth Preparation Techniques:Randomized Clinical Trial
|
N/A |