Postoperative Pain
Conditions
Keywords
First Permanent Molar, Composite, Sonic Fill, Resin Restoration, Pediatric Dentistry
Brief summary
The aim of this study is to assess the postoperative pain following restoration with composite resin versus sonic fill in children with deep carious first permanent molar.
Detailed description
For many years, composite resin restorations have been considered an acceptable treatment choice for anterior applications. Recent advances in composite resin mechanical properties and improved adhesive systems have broadened the application of these materials to include the restoration of posterior teeth. However, it is still generally accepted that posterior composite resin restorations have limitations and that there is no ideal material available. A volumetric shrinkage occurs when a composite resin material is cured. The shrinkage is the result of conversion of monomer molecules into a more dense polymer network, which leads to bulk contraction. A new nanohybrid composite activated by sonic energy has been recently introduced as a single-step, bulk-fill restorative material. This system utilizes the patented sonic-activation technology enabling a rapid flow of composite into the cavity for effortless placement and superior adaptation in one single layer, thereby, emphasizes its practical and efficient technique for placing posterior composites. The hand piece, designed by KaVo (Germany), delivers sonic energy at varying intensities, which is adjusted on the shank from low to high (1 to 5) to control rate of composite extrusion.
Interventions
PROCEDURESonic Fill Restoration
Kerr's Sonic Fill is the only sonic-activated, single-step, bulk-fill composite that starts out as a low-viscosity composite.
PROCEDUREComposite Resin Restoration
Composite resins are polymer-based materials used in dentistry for aesthetic repairs.Polymerization is accomplished typically with a hand held curing light that emits specific wavelengths keyed to the initiator and catalyst packages involved.
Sponsors
Cairo University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
6 Years to 9 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Asymptomatic First Permanent Molar * Age of the patient ranging from 6-9 years * Normal periodontal status * Teeth with no previous restorative treatment * Good oral health * Absences of pathological mobility
Exclusion criteria
* Adverse medical history * Potential behavioral problems * Parents refusing participation of their children
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Postoperative Pain | Baseline | The primary outcome (postoperative pain) is evaluated the following day of the treatment performed by a phone call from the outcome assessor, a week and a month after to check in any pain. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical Evaluation of Restoration (Modified USPHS Criteria) | 3 months, 6 months, 9 months | The secondary outcome (USPHS) is evaluated by the outcome assessor and an investigator using the given scores as follows: The modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria for retention, color matching, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, surface texture and anatomical form were used. |
Contacts
Primary ContactMennatallah S Maklad, Masters
Backup ContactFatma K Abdelgawad, Professor
Outcome results
None listed