Preventive measures for tooth decay

Comparative Assessment of Retention of Pit and Fissure Sealant versus Flowable Composite with or without Air- abrasion and Caries Occurrence after Application of both the materials: An in vivo study - NIL

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Phase 2

Study type

Interventional

Source

CTRI

Registry ID

CTRI/2024/10/075084

Enrollment

Registered

2024-10-10

Start date

Unknown

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2024-10-14

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

None listed

Interventions

Intervention1: air abrasion followed by application of pits and fissure sealant: Air abrasion was performed on one side of the mouth in 15 children. After this, the area underwent acid etching, and un

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Inclusion criteria 1. 30 children with the age of 6–9 years in good general health. 2. Child able to cooperate. 3. Parents for the child have consented. 4. All the First Permanent molars having visible and accessible occlusal surface. 5. Children with all four caries ?free first permanent molars.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Exclusion criteria 1. Medically compromised patients. 2. Uncooperative behaviour. 3. Partially erupted teeth 4. Teeth with cavitations or spontaneous pain (pulp pathology) 5. Developmental enamel defect- Quantitative defect (Hypoplasia) and qualitative defect (hypomineralisation)

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
retention and caries occurrence with air abrasion and acid etching versus retention and caries occurrence with acid etching aloneTimepoint: 3, 6 and 9 months	—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
retention & caries occurrence after application of both the materialsTimepoint: 3 6 & 9 months	—

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactDr Deepika Sharma

Government College of Dentistry

drashish2005@rediffmail.com9229223035

Outcome results