Unsatisfactory Restoration of ToothreacondcompNCT02222701
Composite Resins Reconditioned, Behavior and Survival: Clinical Follow-up 10 Years
An observational study of Unsatisfactory Restoration of Tooth, run by University of Chile at 1 site in Chile.
Trial summary
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical performance of resin composite restorations refurbished and compare with 2 groups of resins, 1 without treatment and another replaced resins acted as controls. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Unsatisfactory Restoration of Tooth
- How many people
- 25 participants
- Where
- 1 siteChile
- Study dates
- May 2003to Dec 2013
- How long will I take part?
- 10 Years
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Any person with composite restorations
Who may be able to join
- Patients with more than 20 teeth.
- Restorations in functional occlusion, with an opposing natural tooth.
- Asymptomatic restored tooth.
- At least one proximal contact area with a neighboring tooth.
- Patients older than 18 years.
- Patients who agreed and signed a consent form for participating in the study.
- Area outside of the restoration failure is in good condition.
Who cannot join
- Patients with contra-indications for regular dental treatment based on their medical history.
- Patients with xerostomia or individuals taking medication that significantly decreased salivary flow.
- Patients with a high risk of caries.
- Patients with psychiatric or physical diseases, which interfered with oral hygiene.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical performance of resin composite restorations refurbished and compare with 2 groups of resins, 1 without treatment and another replaced resins acted as controls. The null hypothesis of this study is that the group of refurbished resins have a similar behavior to the control groups.
Read the detailed description
A cohort of 26 patients aged 18-80 years old (mean: 28.35 years; 42% men, 58% women) with 78 composite restorations (Class I: 39; Class II: 39) were recruited at the Operative Dentistry Clinic at the Dental School of the University of Chile. All participants in the refurbishing groups showed clinical features for the anantomy, roughness and/or luster that deviated from the ideal and were rated Bravo according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. New Composites with Alpha values (Replacement group) and acceptable composites (No treatment group) were used as controls. The protocol was approved by the Institutional Research Ethics Committee of the Dental School at the University of Chile (Project PRI-ODO-0207). All patients signed informed-consent forms and completed registration forms
General Inclusion Criteria:
- Patients with more than 20 teeth.
- Restorations in functional occlusion, with an opposing natural tooth.
- Asymptomatic restored tooth.
- At least one proximal contact area with a neighboring tooth.
- Patients older than 18 years.
- Patients who agreed and signed a consent form for participating in the study.
- Area outside of the restoration failure is in good condition.
General Exclusion Criteria:
- Patients with contra-indications for regular dental treatment based on their medical history.
- Patients with xerostomia or individuals taking medication that significantly decreased salivary flow.
- Patients with a high risk of caries.
- Patients with psychiatric or physical diseases, which interfered with oral hygiene.
Treatment Group Criteria Two hundred four patients were initially evaluated and assigned in accordance with the modified USPHS criteria,26 patients were selected based on the inclusion criteria with at least 1 Composite restoration with anatomy, roughness and/or luster (Bravo) suitable for reburbishing, with another composite restorations that had excellent values (Alpha) and was made at this time (Replacement group).And finally another composite pre-existing with acceptable condition (Alpha or Bravo values) acted as control. The patient was considered the statistical unit in this study (n=20).
Restoration Assessment The quality of the restorations was scored in accordance with the modified USPHS criteria. The Cohen Kappa inter-examiner coefficient was 0.74 in the first year and 0.87 after 10 years for two examiners (JM and EF) who underwent calibration training exercises each year. In the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and tenth years, the examiners independently assessed the restorations for anatomic form, roughness, color, marginal staining,luster, secondary caries, marginal and marginal adaptation, both directly via tactile and visual examinations with mouth mirror number five and explorer number 23 (Hu Friedy Mfg. Co. Inc.) and indirectly by radiographic examination (bite wing). A third clinician (GM), who also underwent the calibration training exercises, made the final decision if a difference was recorded between the two examiners and they could not reach an agreement.
Treatment Groups Refurbishing For this group, The dentists finished the occlusal, lingual or facial surfaces of defective RBC restorations with the medium series of aluminum oxide disks (Sof-Lex,3M ESPE) or carbide burs (12 and 30 blades,Brasseler USA, Dental Instrumentation,Savannah, Ga.) and then polished them with afine series of aluminum oxide disks (Sof-Lex, 3M ESPE) and diamond-impregnated composite polisher (ComposiPro Diacomp, Brasseler). For restorations in which proximal surface areas were affected, the clinicians smoothed them with interproximal aluminum oxide finishing strips (Sof-Lex Finishing Strips, 3M ESPE).
Replacement group Composite resins with Alpha values for the marginal adaptation criteria were used as the positive control and were made with resin composite (Filtek Supreme, 3M ESPE), eith rubber dam isolation and the adhesive system L-Pop Prompt (3M-ESPE) No treatment Composite resin restorations (Z100, 3M ESPE) in general clinically acceptable, did not receive treatment.
- Conditions
- Unsatisfactory Restoration of Tooth
- Keywords
- composite, dental, longevity
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Replacement | Composite resins with Alpha values for the marginal adaptation criteria were used as the positive control and were made with resin composite (Filtek Supreme, 3M ESPE), eith rubber dam isolation and the adhesive system L-Pop Prompt (3M-ESPE) | |
| No treatment | Composite resin restorations (Z100, 3M ESPE) in general clinically acceptable, did not receive treatment. | |
| Refurbishing | For this group, The dentists finished the occlusal, lingual or facial surfaces of defective RBC restorations with the medium series of aluminum oxide disks (Sof-Lex,3M ESPE) or carbide burs (12 and 30 blades,Brasseler USA, Dental Instrumentation,Savannah, Ga.) and then polished them with afine series of aluminum oxide disks (Sof-Lex, 3M ESPE) and diamond-impregnated composite polisher (ComposiPro Diacomp, Brasseler). For restorations in which proximal surface areas were affected, the clinicians smoothed them with interproximal aluminum oxide finishing strips (Sof-Lex Finishing Strips, 3M ESPE). |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Changes in quality of restorations
The quality of the restorations was scored according to the modified USPHS criteria. Two examiners underwent calibration exercises each year (JM and EF). Immediately after the treatment (baseline) and 10 years later, the examiners assessed the restorations independently by direct visual and tactile examination with mouth mirror number 5 and explorer number 23 (Hu Friedy Mfg. Co. Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and indirectly by radiographic examination (bite wing). The four parameters examined were anatomic form, secondary caries, marginal staining and marginal adaptation. If the difference was recorded between the two examiners, and if they could not reach an agreement, a third clinician, who also underwent the calibration exercises (GM), made the final decision.
Measured: 1 year
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted21 Aug 2014 (estimated)
- Study startMay 2003
- Primary completionDec 2013
- Study completionDec 2013
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Unsatisfactory Restoration of ToothStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 25 participants (actual)
- Target duration
- 10 Years
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Chile
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Eduardo Fernandez, University of Chile
- Investigators
- eduardo fernandez, Principal investigator, University of Chile
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02222701
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- FOUCH2012/10-4
- Acronym
- reacondcomp
- Status last verified
- Aug 2014
- First submitted
- 19 Aug 2014
- Last updated
- 21 Aug 2014
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Publications
Moncada G, Vildosola P, Fernandez E, Estay J, de Oliveira Junior OB, de Andrade MF, Martin J, Mjor IA, Gordan VV. Longitudinal results of a 10-year clinical trial of repair of amalgam restorations. Oper Dent. 2015 Jan-Feb;40(1):34-43. doi: 10.2341/14-045-C. Epub 2014 Aug 6.
PubMed 25100406Fernandez E, Martin J, Vildosola P, Oliveira Junior OB, Gordan V, Mjor I, Bersezio C, Estay J, de Andrade MF, Moncada G. Can repair increase the longevity of composite resins? Results of a 10-year clinical trial. J Dent. 2015 Feb;43(2):279-86. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.05.015. Epub 2014 Jun 4.
PubMed 24907560
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 21 Aug 2014. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Composite Resins Reconditioned, Behavior and Survival: Clinical Follow-up 10 Years
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02222701
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- reacondcomp / FOUCH2012/10-4
- Conditions
- Unsatisfactory Restoration of Tooth
- Keywords
- composite, dental, longevity
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 25 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of ChileUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- May 2003
- Primary completion
- Dec 2013 (actual)
- Study completion
- Dec 2013 (actual)
- First posted
- 21 Aug 2014 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical performance of resin composite restorations refurbished and compare with 2 groups of resins, 1 without treatment and another replaced resins acted as controls. The null hypothesis of this study is that the group of refurbished resins have a similar behavior to the control groups.
Detailed description
A cohort of 26 patients aged 18-80 years old (mean: 28.35 years; 42% men, 58% women) with 78 composite restorations (Class I: 39; Class II: 39) were recruited at the Operative Dentistry Clinic at the Dental School of the University of Chile. All participants in the refurbishing groups showed clinical features for the anantomy, roughness and/or luster that deviated from the ideal and were rated Bravo according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. New Composites with Alpha values (Replacement group) and acceptable composites (No treatment group) were used as controls. The protocol was approved by the Institutional Research Ethics Committee of the Dental School at the University of Chile (Project PRI-ODO-0207). All patients signed informed-consent forms and completed registration forms
General Inclusion Criteria:
- Patients with more than 20 teeth.
- Restorations in functional occlusion, with an opposing natural tooth.
- Asymptomatic restored tooth.
- At least one proximal contact area with a neighboring tooth.
- Patients older than 18 years.
- Patients who agreed and signed a consent form for participating in the study.
- Area outside of the restoration failure is in good condition.
General Exclusion Criteria:
- Patients with contra-indications for regular dental treatment based on their medical history.
- Patients with xerostomia or individuals taking medication that significantly decreased salivary flow.
- Patients with a high risk of caries.
- Patients with psychiatric or physical diseases, which interfered with oral hygiene.
Treatment Group Criteria Two hundred four patients were initially evaluated and assigned in accordance with the modified USPHS criteria,26 patients were selected based on the inclusion criteria with at least 1 Composite restoration with anatomy, roughness and/or luster (Bravo) suitable for reburbishing, with another composite restorations that had excellent values (Alpha) and was made at this time (Replacement group).And finally another composite pre-existing with acceptable condition (Alpha or Bravo values) acted as control. The patient was considered the statistical unit in this study (n=20).
Restoration Assessment The quality of the restorations was scored in accordance with the modified USPHS criteria. The Cohen Kappa inter-examiner coefficient was 0.74 in the first year and 0.87 after 10 years for two examiners (JM and EF) who underwent calibration training exercises each year. In the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and tenth years, the examiners independently assessed the restorations for anatomic form, roughness, color, marginal staining,luster, secondary caries, marginal and marginal adaptation, both directly via tactile and visual examinations with mouth mirror number five and explorer number 23 (Hu Friedy Mfg. Co. Inc.) and indirectly by radiographic examination (bite wing). A third clinician (GM), who also underwent the calibration training exercises, made the final decision if a difference was recorded between the two examiners and they could not reach an agreement.
Treatment Groups Refurbishing For this group, The dentists finished the occlusal, lingual or facial surfaces of defective RBC restorations with the medium series of aluminum oxide disks (Sof-Lex,3M ESPE) or carbide burs (12 and 30 blades,Brasseler USA, Dental Instrumentation,Savannah, Ga.) and then polished them with afine series of aluminum oxide disks (Sof-Lex, 3M ESPE) and diamond-impregnated composite polisher (ComposiPro Diacomp, Brasseler). For restorations in which proximal surface areas were affected, the clinicians smoothed them with interproximal aluminum oxide finishing strips (Sof-Lex Finishing Strips, 3M ESPE).
Replacement group Composite resins with Alpha values for the marginal adaptation criteria were used as the positive control and were made with resin composite (Filtek Supreme, 3M ESPE), eith rubber dam isolation and the adhesive system L-Pop Prompt (3M-ESPE) No treatment Composite resin restorations (Z100, 3M ESPE) in general clinically acceptable, did not receive treatment.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Target follow-up
- 10 Years
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Replacement | – | –Composite resins with Alpha values for the marginal adaptation criteria were used as the positive control and were made with resin composite (Filtek Supreme, 3M ESPE), eith rubber dam isolation and the adhesive system L-Pop Prompt (3M-ESPE) |
| No treatment | – | –Composite resin restorations (Z100, 3M ESPE) in general clinically acceptable, did not receive treatment. |
| Refurbishing | – | –For this group, The dentists finished the occlusal, lingual or facial surfaces of defective RBC restorations with the medium series of aluminum oxide disks (Sof-Lex,3M ESPE) or carbide burs (12 and 30 blades,Brasseler USA, Dental Instrumentation,Savannah, Ga.) and then polished them with afine series of aluminum oxide disks (Sof-Lex, 3M ESPE) and diamond-impregnated composite polisher (ComposiPro Diacomp, Brasseler). For restorations in which proximal surface areas were affected, the clinicians smoothed them with interproximal aluminum oxide finishing strips (Sof-Lex Finishing Strips, 3M ESPE). |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Any person with composite restorations
Key inclusion criteria (7 listed)
- Patients with more than 20 teeth.
- Restorations in functional occlusion, with an opposing natural tooth.
- Asymptomatic restored tooth.
- At least one proximal contact area with a neighboring tooth.
- Patients older than 18 years.
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Patients with contra-indications for regular dental treatment based on their medical history.
- Patients with xerostomia or individuals taking medication that significantly decreased salivary flow.
- Patients with a high risk of caries.
- Patients with psychiatric or physical diseases, which interfered with oral hygiene.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Changes in quality of restorations
Time frame: 1 year
The quality of the restorations was scored according to the modified USPHS criteria. Two examiners underwent calibration exercises each year (JM and EF). Immediately after the treatment (baseline) and 10 years later, the examiners assessed the restorations independently by direct visual and tactile examination with mouth mirror number 5 and explorer number 23 (Hu Friedy Mfg. Co. Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and indirectly by radiographic examination (bite wing). The four parameters examined were anatomic form, secondary caries, marginal staining and marginal adaptation. If the difference was recorded between the two examiners, and if they could not reach an agreement, a third clinician, who also underwent the calibration exercises (GM), made the final decision.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 21 Aug 2014.
- Results publication: PubMed 25100406Moncada G, Vildosola P, Fernandez E, Estay J, de Oliveira Junior OB, de Andrade MF, Martin J, Mjor IA, Gordan VV. Longitudinal results of a 10-year clinical trial of repair of amalgam restorations. Oper Dent. 2015 Jan-Feb;40(1):34-43. doi: 10.2341/14-045-C. Epub 2014 Aug 6.
- Results publication: PubMed 24907560Fernandez E, Martin J, Vildosola P, Oliveira Junior OB, Gordan V, Mjor I, Bersezio C, Estay J, de Andrade MF, Moncada G. Can repair increase the longevity of composite resins? Results of a 10-year clinical trial. J Dent. 2015 Feb;43(2):279-86. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.05.015. Epub 2014 Jun 4.
Related trials for Unsatisfactory Restoration of Tooth
Active, not recruiting
Clinical Evaluation of a New Dual-cure Universal Adhesive
Class I Dental Restorations, Class II Dental Restorations
Active, not recruiting
Celtra Quatro Crown Study
Fractured Tooth, Decayed Tooth
Recruiting
The Performance of Posterior Partial Coverage Coronal Restorations Luted With Two Differrent Systems.
Unsatisfactory or Defective Restoration of Tooth
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
eduardo fernandez principal investigator
University of Chile
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Unsatisfactory Restoration of Tooth, run by University of Chile at 1 site in Chile.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 7 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 21 Aug 2014. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Chile. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Changes in quality of restorations (time frame: 1 year). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02222701, which also lists 2 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 21 Aug 2014.