Dental Caries in Children
Conditions
Keywords
nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomer, sub-micron hybrid resin composite, permanent molar teeth
Brief summary
The aim of this randomised controlled double-blinded, split mouth, single-center clinical trial was to evaluate the 18-month clinical performance of nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomer and sub-micron hybrid resin composite restorations in lower first permanent teeth of pediatric patients.
Detailed description
Occlusal carious lesions on the left and right mandibular first molar teeth of 96 pediatric patients (54 female, 42 male) were restored in a split-mouth study design. Nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomer (Nano-RMGIC) (Ketac N 100, 3M/ESPE, USA) was used to restore the carious lesions for patients in the treatment group while a sub-micron hybrid resin composite (SpectrumTPH3, Dentsply, USA) was used for patients in the control group. Clinical evaluation of restorations were performed at the 1st week, 6th, 12th and 18th month recalls by two calibrated examiners according to the Modified-USPHS criteria.
Interventions
OTHERDental restoration
Restoration of carious mandibular first molar teeth are restored either with nano-filled resin modified glass ionomer or sub-micron resin composite restorative material
Sponsors
Yeditepe University
Hacinlioglu, Nadya Marie
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)
Intervention model description
One of the Nano-filled glass ionomer or sub-micron hybrid resin composite restorative materials were applied to carious mandibular first molar teeth
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
7 Years to 15 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
1. Patients with two comparable occlusal carious lesions on both mandibular first permanent molars. 2. Neutral occlusion with a natural antagonist tooth 3. Patients that are able to come to recalls 4. Patients with a good oral hygiene
Exclusion criteria
1. Patients suffering systemic diseases or allergies 2. Patients with gastrointestinal problems 3. Mandibular first molar teeth with restorations 4. Patients with oral habits 5. Patients receiving orthodontic treatment 6. Hypomineralized or Hypoplastic first molars
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Color Match | Changes of dental restorations regarding color match were observed at 1st week, 6th,12th and 18th month recalls. | Color match of dental restorations were observed with a Vita Scale visually by two calibrated examiners. Restorations were scored Alfa, Bravo or Charlie according to Modified USPHS criteria. ( Alfa: Imperceptible in room light in one-second glance, Bravo: Perceptible mismatch with the Vita scale but clinically acceptable, Charlie: Esthetically unacceptable) |
| Marginal Discoloration | Changes of dental restorations regarding color match were observed at 1st week, 6th,12th and 18th month recalls. | Marginal discoloration of dental restorations were observed by two calibrated examiners with visual inspection. Restorations were scored Alfa, Bravo or Charlie according to Modified USPHS criteria. (Alfa: No existing marginal discoloration, Bravo:Presence of discoloration at margins between restoration and tooth structure; discoloration does not penetrate towards the pulp, Charlie: The discoloration penetrated along the margins of the restoration in a pulpal direction. |
| Anatomic Form | Changes of dental restorations regarding color match were observed at 1st week, 6th,12th and 18th month recalls. | Anatomic form of dental restorations were observed by two calibrated examiners by visual inspection and explorer. Restorations were scored Alfa, Bravo or Charlie according to Modified USPHS criteria. (Alfa: The restoration is not under-contoured, Bravo: The restoration is under-contoured, but there is no dentin or base exposed, Charlie: Sufficient restorative material is missing so that dentin or base is exposed. |
| Marginal Integrity | Changes of dental restorations regarding color match were observed at 1st week, 6th,12th and 18th month recalls. | Marginal integrity of dental restorations were observed by two calibrated examiners with visual inspection and explorer. Restorations were scored Alfa, Bravo or Charlie according to Modified USPHS criteria. (Alfa: No visible evidence of a crevice along the margin into which an explorer will catch, Bravo: The explorer catches a crevice along the margin but there is no exposure of dentin or base, Charlie: Visible evidence of a crevice with exposure of dentin or base.) |
| Recurrent Decay | Changes of dental restorations regarding color match were observed at 1st week, 6th,12th and 18th month recalls. | Recurrent decay of dental restorations were observed by two calibrated examiners with visual inspection. Restorations were scored Alfa or Charlie according to Modified USPHS criteria. (Alfa: No evidence of recurrent caries along the margin of the restoration, Charlie: Evidence of caries along the margin of the restoration.) |
| Fracture | Changes of dental restorations regarding color match were observed at 1st week, 6th,12th and 18th month recalls. | Fracture of dental restorations were observed by two calibrated examiners by visual inspection with explorer. Restorations were scored Alfa, Bravo or Charlie according to Modified USPHS criteria. (Alfa: No fracture, Bravo: Small chip, but clinically acceptable, Charlie: Failure due to bulk restoration fracture.) |
| Surface Texture | Changes of dental restorations regarding color match were observed at 1st week, 6th,12th and 18th month recalls. | Surface texture of dental restorations were observed by two calibrated examiners by visual inspection and explorer. Restorations were scored Alfa, Bravo or Charlie according to Modified USPHS criteria. (Alfa: Enamel like surface, Bravo: Surface rougher then enamel, clinically acceptable, Charlie: Surface unacceptable rough.) |
| Postoperative Sensitivity | Changes of dental restorations regarding color match were observed at 1st week, 6th,12th and 18th month recalls. | Postoperative sensitivity of patients were assessed by two calibrated examiners by cold thermal test. Restorations were scored Alfa or Charlie according to Modified USPHS criteria. (Alfa: No sensitivity, Charlie: Sensitivity present.) |
Outcome results
None listed