Skip to content

Caries Sealing Using Giomer and Glass Ionomer Cement With or Without Silver Diamine Fluoride

Clinical Evaluation of Caries Sealing Technique on Primary Teeth Using Giomer and Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) With or Without Silver Diamine Fluoride (SDF)

Status
UNKNOWN
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03872986
Enrollment
100
Registered
2019-03-13
Start date
2021-02-04
Completion date
2024-06-01
Last updated
2021-03-15

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

Conditions

Caries, Dental, Caries Class I

Keywords

primary teeth, silver diamine fluoride, caries sealing

Brief summary

The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the clinical performance of Giomer and GIC restorations with and without SDF on caries sealing of primary molar teeth

Detailed description

Restorations will be placed on four primary molar teeth with occlusal caries, in a split mouth design. 100 patients will be included in the study. The teeth will be randomized into four groups according to the restorative materials. Group 1: SDF (Riva Star) + Giomer (Beautifil II, (Shofu Dental, Tokyo, Japan) Group 2: Giomer (Beautifil II, (Shofu Dental, Tokyo, Japan) Group 3: SDF (Riva Star) + GIC (Equia Forte, GC, Japan) Group 4: GIC (Equia Forte, GC, Japan) The restorations will be evaluated clinically at baseline and 6., 12., 18., 24. months and radiologically at 6., 12. and 24. months. The modified US Public Health Service criteria (secondary caries, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration and retention) will be used for clinical evaluation of restorations. Intra-oral photos will be taken directly after treatment and at control appointments. The data will be analysed statistically using Wilcoxon test, chi square test and the Kaplan-Meier survival method will be used to estimate survival percentages.

Interventions

DEVICESDF

Combined Silver Diamine Fluoride (SDF) and Potassium Iodide (KI)

DEVICEGiomer

Beautifil II dental restorative material

DEVICEGIC

Equia forte dental restorative material

Sponsors

Hacettepe University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
6 Years to 8 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Patients and parents of the patients who accept to participate and sign the informed consent. * Patients who have at least four first and/or second primary molars that require class I restorations * Teeth that have healthy lamina dura and periodontal ligament * Teeth that have caries lesions not extending to the pulp radiographically * Patients whose first molar teeth are in occlusion

Exclusion criteria

* Patients and parents of the patients who does not accept to participate and sign the informed consent * Teeth which need endodontic treatment * Teeth that have caries more than one surface * Teeth that are previously restored * Patients who are not cooperative for the dental procedure * Teeth that doesn't have proximal or occlusal contacts with adjacent healthy teeth * Patients who have bruxism, skeletal or dental malocclusion * Teeth that have developmental defects/anomalies or discoloration * Patients who have allergies to resin based restorative materials

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
The US Public Health Service criteria for secondary caries on restorations2 yearsA:There is no clinical diagnosis of caries C:There is clinical diagnosis of caries
The US Public Health Service criteria for retention of restorations2 yearsAlpha: No loss on the restoration Bravo:Partial loss on the restoration Charlie:Total loss on the restoration
The US Public Health Service criteria for marginal discoloration on restorations2 yearsAlpha: No visual evidence of discoloration Bravo: Slight staining which can be polished away Charlie: Discoloration has penetrated in the pulpal direction
The US Public Health Service criteria for marginal adaptation on restorations2 yearsAlpha: Restoration is fully intact. No explorer catch evident Bravo: Slight explorer catch in no more than 1/3 of margins Charlie: Explorer catch and/or penetration is evident in more than 1/3 of restoration margin
The US Public Health Service criteria for surface roughness on restorations2 yearsAlfa: Enamel-like surface Bravo: Surface rougher than enamel, clinically acceptable Charlie: Surface unacceptably rough / restoration is broken or cracked
The US Public Health Service criteria for anatomical form on restorations2 yearsA: No loss on anatomical form of the restoration B: Change in anatomical form but dentin or cement is not expose C: Change in anatomical form that expose dentin or cement

Countries

Turkey (Türkiye)

Contacts

Primary ContactZafer C Cehreli
zcehreli@gmail.com00905353197969
Backup ContactGizem Erbas Unverdi
erbasgizem@yahoo.com00905052805736

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026