Skip to content

Clinical and Histological Evaluation of Hesperidin as a Direct Pulp Capping Material

Clinical and Histological Evaluation of Hesperidin Versus Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA) as a Direct Pulp Capping Material: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT06402032
Enrollment
32
Registered
2024-05-07
Start date
2022-09-01
Completion date
2024-03-30
Last updated
2024-05-07

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

Conditions

Pulp Exposure, Dental, Dental Pulp Capping

Brief summary

Direct pulp capping technique is one of the oldest known treatments for exposed pulp tissue, and there is a continuous requirement for the most efficient materials to be used in this approach. Successful pulp capping is the usual way to preserve the vitality of tooth and avoid root canal treatment or surgical tooth extraction.

Interventions

Hesperidin is a natural flavonoid with well-known of its anti-inflammatory properties in many disease. Hesperidin in previous studies has been documented to reduce inflammation as well as pain through suppression of cytokine production, NF-κB activity, and oxidative stress. Hesperidin, as a natural product, have been considered as a promising pulp capping material in several invitro and animal studies. However, the regenerative effect of hesperidin as pulp capping material in human teeth has not yet been reported.

Mineral trioxide aggregate is a cementitious material having various advantages as it is biocompatible, bioactive, osteo-inductive, non-resorbable material with exciting clinical applications, stimulating reparative continuous dentin formation along with maintaining the integrity of the pulp. Moreover, mineral trioxide aggregate provides seal to tooth structure and is of high strength. It is considered the gold standard material for direct pulp capping.

Sponsors

Cairo University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 35 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Good oral hygiene, * Sound wisdom teeth with closed apices with normal pulp vitality response * No periodontal disease or periapical lesions on periapical radiograph * Cooperative patients approving to participate in the study

Exclusion criteria

* Medically compromised participants * Evidence of parafunctional habits * Heavy smokers * Teeth with signs and symptoms of irreversible pulpitis or pulp necrosis * Severe periodontal problems or pathological periapical changes * Teeth with open apex or pulp calcification

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Success Rate (Clinical evaluation)after 12 weeksTeeth with vital pulp (numerical values with electric pulp tester) and absence of clinical signs/symptoms (Visual Analog Score for pain) as one reported value indicating clinical success rate (%)

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Histomorphometric analysis (Histologic evaluation)after 12 weeksThickness of formed dentin bridge (μm)

Countries

Egypt

Outcome results

None listed

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