Hypomineralization, Tooth
Conditions
Keywords
ART, Hall technique, HSPM, Children, Restoration
Brief summary
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.
Detailed description
Background and Aims: Despite the widespread prevalence of HSPM: there are no comparative studies yet between ART and Hall technique in the restoration of HSPM. there are no studies yet on the success of ART in the treatment of HSPM. Design: A randomized, controlled, crossover clinical study including thirty children Each child will apply both of ART and Hall technique to him.
Interventions
COMBINATION_PRODUCTHall technique
The child will be placed to them SSC on one of their HSPM affected teeth. Pain during treatment will be assessed using the FLACC scale and satisfaction the child and parent will be evaluated using likert scale after the treatment immediately and after one month and evaluate the success restoration adapted from Innes et al. after 3\_6\_9\_12 month.
COMBINATION_PRODUCTART
The child will be restored to them one of their HSPM affected teeth by GIC. Pain during treatment will be assessed using the FLACC scale and satisfaction the child and parent will be evaluated using likert scale after the treatment immediately and after one month and evaluate the success restoration adapted from Innes et al. after 3\_6\_9\_12 month.
Sponsors
Tishreen University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Intervention model description
A randomized, controlled, crossover clinical study, comparison of ART and Hall Technique.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
3 Years to 11 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
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.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Dental pain assessed by FLACC scale | During the placement of the restoration | 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. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Child Satisfaction with the restoration assessed by the Likert scale | Immediately after the placement of the restoration | Self-assessment by the children using Likert scale which is a psychometric scale has five responses (very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, unsatisfied, very unsatisfied) |
| Parent Satisfaction with the restoration assessed by the Likert scale | Immediately after the placement of the restoration after asking the child | Self-assessment by the parent using Likert scale which is a psychometric scale has five responses (very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, unsatisfied, very unsatisfied) |
Other
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical success of restoration assessed by evaluation criteria for restoration assessments after 9 months | After 9 months from treatment | Evaluated by outcome assessor using evaluation criteria for restoration assessments which has three scores (success, minor failures, major failures) for ART and Hall technique. |
| Clinical success of restoration assessed by evaluation criteria for restoration assessments after 3 months | After 3 months from treatment | Evaluated by outcome assessor using evaluation criteria for restoration assessments which has three scores (success, minor failures, major failures) for ART and Hall technique. |
| Radiological success of restoration assessed by Radiological success cireteria after 12 months | After 12 months from treatment | 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. |
| Clinical success of restoration assessed by evaluation criteria for restoration assessments after 12 months | After 12 months from treatment | Evaluated by outcome assessor using evaluation criteria for restoration assessments which has three scores (success, minor failures, major failures) for ART and Hall technique. |
| Radiological success of restoration assessed by Radiological success cireteria after 6 months | After 6 months from traetment | 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. |
| Clinical success of restoration assessed by evaluation criteria for restoration assessments after 6 months | After 6 months from treatment | Evaluated by outcome assessor using evaluation criteria for restoration assessments which has three scores (success, minor failures, major failures) for ART and Hall technique. |
Countries
Syria
Contacts
Primary ContactNabih Raslan, Dr
Backup ContactAya Adl, Dr
Outcome results
None listed