Dental Caries
Conditions
Keywords
Cention N, Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement, Hybrid glass-ionomer cement, Zinc reinforced glass-ionomer cement, Primary Molar Teeth
Brief summary
This randomized controlled trial aims to compare the clinical effectiveness of four ion-releasing restorative materials in the proximal cavities of primary molars that underwent selective caries removal. The main questions to answer are: * Will there be any difference among the restorative materials clinical succes in the means of modified United States Public Health Services (USPHS) criteria for dental restorations? * Will there be any difference among the restorative materials in the means of preservation of pulpal vitality? Eighty six children (262 teeth), between 5 and 9 years old (7.15±1.14) enrolled for the study. Researchers will compare the clinical performance of restorative materials, (1:Equia Forte HT; 2: Fuji II LC; 3: Cention N; 4: ChemFil Rock), applied to the proximal cavities of primary molars following selective caries removal, according to the modified USPHS criteria. Participants will: \- visit the clinic 1st,3rd,6th,12th,18th,24th,30th and 36th months after the restoration.
Interventions
PROCEDURECaries Removal
The cavity preparation and restoration were performed by a single operator. Infected dentin tissue was selectively removed. The differentiation between infected and affected dentin was determined by the clinician through the visual-tactile method.Isolation was achieved with cotton rolls and suction.
PROCEDUREFilling
Sectional matrix systems and interdental wedges were used to achieve an anatomical contour and contact. Then, the selected materials were placed in the cavity according to the manufacturers' recommendations.
Sponsors
Akdeniz University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)
Masking description
The materials were visually different from each other, which allowed the investigators to identify each material. As a result, masking could only be performed with the participants.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
5 Years to 9 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
For participants: * no known or suspected history of allergy to medications or restorative materials * no habits of teeth grinding or clenching * presence of at least one interproximal carious lesion For teeth: * carious lesion reaching at least 1/2 dentin * in contact with adjacent teeth and in occlusion with antagonist teeth * have no pathological mobility * periodontally healthy * no symptoms of pulpal pathology * physiological root resorption should not exceed one-third of the root length if seen * permanent tooth germ present below the tooth
Exclusion criteria
* did not attend their follow-up appointments
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical evaluation of the filling materials according to the modified USPHS criteria | Evaluations were conducted at the 1st, 3rd, 6th, 12th, 18th, 24th, 30th and 36th months. | Restorations were evaluated for retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, color stability, secondary caries, and postoperative sensitivity according to the modified USPHS with scores assigned as follows: the best being Alpha and the worst being Charlie. Each restoration received a score of Alpha, Bravo, or Charlie at each time interval. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Preservation of pulpal vitality | Evaluations were conducted at the 1st, 3rd, 6th, 12th, 18th, 24th, 30th and 36th months. | The modified USPHS criteria do not include the measure of pulpal vitality when evaluating the success of restorations. However, maintaining pulpal vitality is also a criterion for the success of a restoration and is assessed not by a graded score but by the presence or absence of symptoms and findings. In this study, pulpal vitality was clinically evaluated based on the presence or absence of percussion sensitivity, palpation sensitivity, gingival redness, fistula or abscess. If percussion sensitivity, palpation sensitivity, or the formation of a fistula or abscess were present, the restoration was classified as unsuccessful regarding pulpal vitality. In cases of gingival redness or unclear clinical symptoms, a periapical radiograph was taken. If presence or absence of radiolucency in the periapical or furcal area was detected in the radiograph, the restoration was classified as unsuccessful regarding pulpal vitality. |
Countries
Turkey (Türkiye)
Outcome results
None listed