Dental CariesNCT02459730
Glass-ionomer Cement Containing Chlorhexidine for ART
A study testing ART with GIC containing 1.25% CHX. and ART with GIC. in people with Dental Caries, run by University of Campinas, Brazil.
Trial summary
This study evaluated the clinical and microbiological long-term effects of 1.25% CHX associated with GIC applied in primary molars using Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) technique. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 3 to 6 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Dental Caries
- What is being tested?
- ART with GIC containing 1.25% CHX. and ART with GIC.
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 40 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Feb 2013to Feb 2014
- Phase
- Interventional
- 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 3 to 6 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child
Who may be able to join
- Good general health
- At least one cavitated dentin carious lesion in primary molars or incisors that had an opening wide enough for the smallest ART excavator access
Who cannot join
- Teeth with pulpal exposure or the presence of fistula and history of pain were excluded
About this study
This study evaluated the clinical and microbiological long-term effects of 1.25% CHX associated with GIC applied in primary molars using Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) technique. Randomized controlled trial was conducted on 40 children with carious lesions that received ART either with GIC containing CHX or GIC only. Survival rate of restorations was checked at 3 days, 3 months and 1 year after their placement when the unstimulated saliva samples were collected for microbiological assessment of mutans streptococci (MS) counts. Data were analyzed using ANOVA/Tukey or Kruskal-Wallis/Mann-Whitney tests (p <0.05).
Read the detailed description
ART treatment and follow-up:
Carious lesions were prepared by removing infected dentin with hand instruments. No local anesthesia was administered. Then, the cavities were filled with the press finger technique with one of the randomly selected materials: (1) GIC KetacMolar Easymix® containing 1.25% chlorhexidine digluconate (KM + CHX; n= 41 tooth surfaces) or (2) KetacMolar Easymix® as a control group (KM; n = 66 tooth surfaces). Material excess was removed using carver instrument and the restoration was coated with a layer of petroleum jelly. Multiple-surface cavities were filled after placement of plastic bands and wedges. Both molars (class I and II) and incisors were treated in this study and the same GIC were used for patients who had more than one carious teeth indicated to ART. The children underwent longitudinal clinical follow-up to assess physical condition (partial or complete fractures) of the restoration and the presence of primary or secondary caries at 7 days, 3 months and 1 year, according to ART evaluation criteria by Frencken et al. Children were encouraged and instructed on dental hygiene and received all other necessary oral care.
Microbiological assays:
Unstimulated whole saliva was collected after 7 days, 3 months and 1 year after treatment from each subject by direct expectoration into a 50-ml sterile container for 5-10 min. Pooled supragingival biofilm samples were collected from all buccal and lingual smooth surfaces, except from the interior of the cavities. In order to standardize plaque amount, a sterile plastic disposable inoculating loop with a circular opening of about 1 µL capacity was used for the collection. Collection was stopped when the opening was filled. Biofilm samples were placed immediately into a 1-ml centrifuge microtubes containing Tris-EDTA buffer (10 mM Tris-Hcl, 0.1 mM EDTA, pH 7.5). Collections were performed at least 1 h after feeding. Tubes were transported on ice to laboratory and processed within 2 h.
- Conditions
- Dental Caries
- Being tested
- ART with GIC containing 1.25% CHX., ART with GIC.
- Keywords
- Dental caries, glass ionomer cement, ART
- Medical subject headings
- Dental Caries
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
ART with GIC containing 1.25% CHX.Procedure or surgery
Carious lesions were prepared by removing infected dentin with hand instruments. No local anesthesia was administered. Then, the cavities were filled with the press finger technique using GIC KetacMolar Easymix® containing 1.25% chlorhexidine digluconate (n= 41 tooth surfaces).
ART with GIC.Procedure or surgery
Carious lesions were prepared by removing infected dentin with hand instruments. No local anesthesia was administered. Then, the cavities were filled with the press finger technique using KetacMolar Easymix® (n = 66 tooth surfaces).
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| ART with GIC containing 1.25% CHX | Experimental | The cavities were filled with the press finger technique using GIC KetacMolar Easymix® containing 1.25% chlorhexidine digluconate (n= 41 tooth surfaces). Receives: Procedure: ART with GIC containing 1.25% CHX. |
| ART with GIC | Active comparator | The cavities were filled with the press finger technique using KetacMolar Easymix® (control group). Receives: Procedure: ART with GIC. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Clinical long-term effect - Survival Rate
Randomized controlled trial was conducted on 40 children with carious lesions that received ART either with GIC containing CHX or GIC only. Survival rate of restorations was checked after 7 days, 3 months and 1 year of their placement.
Measured: up to 1 year after restorative procedure
Secondary outcomes (1)
Microbiological long-term effect (microbiological assessment of mutans streptococci (MS) counts)
The unstimulated saliva samples were collected for microbiological assessment of mutans streptococci (MS) counts after 7 days, 3 months and 1 year of the dental treatment.
Measured: up to 1 year after restorative procedure
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted2 Jun 2015 (estimated)
- Study startFeb 2013
- Primary completionFeb 2013
- Study completionFeb 2014
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Dental CariesStudies 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
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Investigator
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Campinas, Brazil
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Rio de Janeiro State Research Supporting Foundation (FAPERJ)
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Aline R F de Castilho, University of Campinas, Brazil
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02459730
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- GICCHXART
- Status last verified
- May 2015
- First submitted
- 13 May 2015
- Last updated
- 2 Jun 2015
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 2 Jun 2015. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Glass-ionomer Cement Containing Chlorhexidine for ART
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02459730
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- GICCHXART
- Conditions
- Dental Caries
- Keywords
- Dental caries, glass ionomer cement, ART
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of Campinas, BrazilUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Rio de Janeiro State Research Supporting Foundation (FAPERJ)
- Study start
- Feb 2013
- Primary completion
- Feb 2013 (actual)
- Study completion
- Feb 2014 (actual)
- First posted
- 2 Jun 2015 (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.
This study evaluated the clinical and microbiological long-term effects of 1.25% CHX associated with GIC applied in primary molars using Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) technique. Randomized controlled trial was conducted on 40 children with carious lesions that received ART either with GIC containing CHX or GIC only. Survival rate of restorations was checked at 3 days, 3 months and 1 year after their placement when the unstimulated saliva samples were collected for microbiological assessment of mutans streptococci (MS) counts. Data were analyzed using ANOVA/Tukey or Kruskal-Wallis/Mann-Whitney tests (p <0.05).
Detailed description
ART treatment and follow-up:
Carious lesions were prepared by removing infected dentin with hand instruments. No local anesthesia was administered. Then, the cavities were filled with the press finger technique with one of the randomly selected materials: (1) GIC KetacMolar Easymix® containing 1.25% chlorhexidine digluconate (KM + CHX; n= 41 tooth surfaces) or (2) KetacMolar Easymix® as a control group (KM; n = 66 tooth surfaces). Material excess was removed using carver instrument and the restoration was coated with a layer of petroleum jelly. Multiple-surface cavities were filled after placement of plastic bands and wedges. Both molars (class I and II) and incisors were treated in this study and the same GIC were used for patients who had more than one carious teeth indicated to ART. The children underwent longitudinal clinical follow-up to assess physical condition (partial or complete fractures) of the restoration and the presence of primary or secondary caries at 7 days, 3 months and 1 year, according to ART evaluation criteria by Frencken et al. Children were encouraged and instructed on dental hygiene and received all other necessary oral care.
Microbiological assays:
Unstimulated whole saliva was collected after 7 days, 3 months and 1 year after treatment from each subject by direct expectoration into a 50-ml sterile container for 5-10 min. Pooled supragingival biofilm samples were collected from all buccal and lingual smooth surfaces, except from the interior of the cavities. In order to standardize plaque amount, a sterile plastic disposable inoculating loop with a circular opening of about 1 µL capacity was used for the collection. Collection was stopped when the opening was filled. Biofilm samples were placed immediately into a 1-ml centrifuge microtubes containing Tris-EDTA buffer (10 mM Tris-Hcl, 0.1 mM EDTA, pH 7.5). Collections were performed at least 1 h after feeding. Tubes were transported on ice to laboratory and processed within 2 h.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, investigator)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| ART with GIC containing 1.25% CHX | Experimental | Procedure: ART with GIC containing 1.25% CHX.The cavities were filled with the press finger technique using GIC KetacMolar Easymix® containing 1.25% chlorhexidine digluconate (n= 41 tooth surfaces). |
| ART with GIC | Active comparator | Procedure: ART with GIC.The cavities were filled with the press finger technique using KetacMolar Easymix® (control group). |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 3 to 6 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Good general health
- At least one cavitated dentin carious lesion in primary molars or incisors that had an opening wide enough for the smallest ART excavator access
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Teeth with pulpal exposure or the presence of fistula and history of pain were excluded
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| ART with GIC containing 1.25% CHX.Carious lesions were prepared by removing infected dentin with hand instruments. No local anesthesia was administered. Then, the cavities were filled with the press finger technique using GIC KetacMolar Easymix® containing 1.25% chlorhexidine digluconate (n= 41 tooth surfaces). | Procedure or surgery | ART with GIC containing 1.25% CHX |
| ART with GIC.Carious lesions were prepared by removing infected dentin with hand instruments. No local anesthesia was administered. Then, the cavities were filled with the press finger technique using KetacMolar Easymix® (n = 66 tooth surfaces). | Procedure or surgery | ART with GIC |
Primary outcome
Clinical long-term effect - Survival Rate
Time frame: up to 1 year after restorative procedure
Randomized controlled trial was conducted on 40 children with carious lesions that received ART either with GIC containing CHX or GIC only. Survival rate of restorations was checked after 7 days, 3 months and 1 year of their placement.
1 secondary outcome
Microbiological long-term effect (microbiological assessment of mutans streptococci (MS) counts)
Time frame: up to 1 year after restorative procedure
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 2 Jun 2015.
Related trials for Dental Caries
Active, not recruiting
Clinical Evaluation of a New Dual-cure Universal Adhesive
Class I Dental Restorations, Class II Dental Restorations
Not yet recruiting
Safety of Intraosseous Anaesthesia in Children With Haemophilia
Haemophilia A, Haemophilia B
Not yet recruiting
Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Silver Diamine Fluoride Versus Light-Cured Silver Diamine Fluoride in Carious Primary Molars
Dental Caries
Not yet recruiting
Clinical Performance of CAD/CAM Hard Hybrid Ceramic Inlays Versus Resin Composite Inlays in Vital Molars With Extensive Occluso-Proximal Cavities
Dental Caries, Cavity, Dental
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Xylitol- Versus Erythritol-Sweetened Mints on Plaque ATP-Bioluminescence Readings
Dental Caries, Dental Plaque
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.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing ART with GIC containing 1.25% CHX. and ART with GIC. in people with Dental Caries, run by University of Campinas, Brazil.
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 2 inclusion and 1 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 2 Jun 2015. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
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?
Clinical long-term effect - Survival Rate (time frame: up to 1 year after restorative procedure). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
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 2 Jun 2015.