Hypomineralization, Tooth Clinical Trial
Official title:
Atraumatic Restoration Treatment Compared to the Hall Technique for Management Hypomineralization Second Primary Molars
Aims: Evaluation of treatment success on HSPM-affected molars after ART and Hall technique. comparison of pain during treatment with ART and Hall technique in HSPM. comparison of child and parent satisfaction with restorations used by ART and Hall technique. Design: A randomized, controlled, crossover clinical study including thirty children.
Status | Recruiting |
Enrollment | 31 |
Est. completion date | April 30, 2024 |
Est. primary completion date | March 1, 2024 |
Accepts healthy volunteers | Accepts Healthy Volunteers |
Gender | All |
Age group | 3 Years to 11 Years |
Eligibility | Inclusion Criteria: - Absolute positive, positive or negative behavior according to the Frankel Scale. - Healthy, both physically and mentally. - Do not take medications that interfere with the assessment of pain within 24 hours prior to treatment. - A child with HSPM-affected primary second molars on the right and left side in one jaw. - The HSPM affected teeth from 2-6 degree in Ghanim scale. - Teeth with atypical carious lesions. - Teeth with post-eruption destroyed - The presence of a clear, intact dentinal bridge between the caries and pulp radially. Exclusion Criteria: - Allergy to the substances used in restoration. - Presence of general or developmental medical conditions. - Teeth with pulpitis inflammation or apical lesion or non-restorable. - Teeth closed to being replaced. |
Country | Name | City | State |
---|---|---|---|
Syrian Arab Republic | Tishreen University | Latakia |
Lead Sponsor | Collaborator |
---|---|
Tishreen University |
Syrian Arab Republic,
Type | Measure | Description | Time frame | Safety issue |
---|---|---|---|---|
Other | Clinical success of restoration assessed by evaluation criteria for restoration assessments after 3 months | Evaluated by outcome assessor using evaluation criteria for restoration assessments which has three scores (success, minor failures, major failures) for ART and Hall technique. | After 3 months from treatment | |
Other | Radiological success of restoration assessed by Radiological success cireteria after 6 months | Evaluated by outcome assessor using Radiological success cireteria for restoration.
where the case is considered successful radiologically when all signs of pulpal necrosis are absent. |
After 6 months from traetment | |
Other | Clinical success of restoration assessed by evaluation criteria for restoration assessments after 6 months | Evaluated by outcome assessor using evaluation criteria for restoration assessments which has three scores (success, minor failures, major failures) for ART and Hall technique. | After 6 months from treatment | |
Other | Clinical success of restoration assessed by evaluation criteria for restoration assessments after 9 months | Evaluated by outcome assessor using evaluation criteria for restoration assessments which has three scores (success, minor failures, major failures) for ART and Hall technique. | After 9 months from treatment | |
Other | Clinical success of restoration assessed by evaluation criteria for restoration assessments after 12 months | Evaluated by outcome assessor using evaluation criteria for restoration assessments which has three scores (success, minor failures, major failures) for ART and Hall technique. | After 12 months from treatment | |
Other | Radiological success of restoration assessed by Radiological success cireteria after 12 months | Evaluated by outcome assessor using Radiological success cireteria for restoration.
where the case is considered successful radiologically when all signs of pulpal necrosis are absent. |
After 12 months from treatment | |
Primary | Dental pain assessed by FLACC scale | Evaluated by outcome assessor using the faces, legs, activity, cry, consolability behavioral rating scale (FLACC scale) a behavioral pain assessment scale which has five criteria face, legs, activity, cry, consolability, which are each assigned a score of 0,1 or2.
Total score of scale is summed in range 0 to10, where:0=relaxed and comfortable; 1-3=mild discomfort; 4-6=moderate pain; 7-10=severe pain. |
During the placement of the restoration | |
Secondary | Child Satisfaction with the restoration assessed by the Likert scale | Self-assessment by the children using Likert scale which is a psychometric scale has five responses (very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, unsatisfied, very unsatisfied) | Immediately after the placement of the restoration | |
Secondary | Parent Satisfaction with the restoration assessed by the Likert scale | Self-assessment by the parent using Likert scale which is a psychometric scale has five responses (very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, unsatisfied, very unsatisfied) | Immediately after the placement of the restoration after asking the child | |
Secondary | Child Satisfaction with the restoration assessed by the Likert scale | Self-assessment by the children using Likert scale which is a psychometric scale has five responses (very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, unsatisfied, very unsatisfied) | After one month from treatment | |
Secondary | Parent Satisfaction with the restoration assessed by the Likert scale | Self-assessment by the parent using Likert scale which is a psychometric scale has a five responses (very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, unsatisfied, very unsatisfied) | After one month from treatment after asking the child |
Status | Clinical Trial | Phase | |
---|---|---|---|
Completed |
NCT03311438 -
Oral Health Intervention Program for Children With Congenital Heart Defects
|
N/A |