AzTrials
AzTrials

PulpitisNCT03168620

Effect of Glass Ionomer Cement as an Interim Restoration in Diagnosis of Pulpal Status

A study testing Restoration in people with Pulpitis, run by Postgraduate Institute of Dental Sciences Rohtak.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Aim: To evaluate whether glass ionomer interim therapeutic restoration (ITR) in asymptomatic teeth with deep cavities can help in determining the pulp status. Methodology: 146 mandibular molars with deep carious lesion having positive response to pulp sensitivity were randomly allocated to two study groups (75-ITR… Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 15 to 54 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
Conditions the study is for
Pulpitis
What is being tested?
Restoration
Type of treatment
Surgery or procedure
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
146 participants
Where
No sites listed yet
Study dates
20 May 2015to 30 Nov 2016
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 15 to 54 years
  • All sexes
  • Healthy volunteers accepted
  • Child, Adult

Who may be able to join

  • mature permanent mandibular molars having deep carious lesions involving half or more of the dentine detected by radiographic examination,
  • pulp sensibility confirmed using the electric pulp test (Digitest D626D; Parkell Electronics, New York, NY) and the cold test (Endo frost, Coltene, Whaledent),
  • absence of apical and furcal radiolucency determined by radiographic examination,
  • absence of clinical symptoms of irreversible symptoms, fistula, swelling and abnormal tooth mobility.
  • Clinical diagnosis of vital pulp was made on the basis of radiographic and clinical examination and the pulp sensibility tests.
  • Exclusion Criteria:• if they presented with signs and symptoms of irreversible pulpitis,
Show all 10Show fewer
  • had negative response to vitality tests before or after ITR,
  • diabetic, immunocompromised,
  • pregnant,
  • had a positive history of antibiotic use in past one month or required antibiotic prophylaxis.

Who cannot join

None listed.

About this study

Official title: Evaluation of the Effect of Glass Ionomer Cement as an Interim Restoration in Diagnosis of Pulpal Status in Permanent Teeth: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial

Aim: To evaluate whether glass ionomer interim therapeutic restoration (ITR) in asymptomatic teeth with deep cavities can help in determining the pulp status. Methodology: 146 mandibular molars with deep carious lesion having positive response to pulp sensitivity were randomly allocated to two study groups (75-ITR, 71- NON-ITR group). In the first group after partial caries removal(PCR), interim therapeutic restoration of glass ionomer cement (GIC) Ketac molar was placed for one month before definitive adhesive restoration. In NON-ITR group, cavity preparation was similar to ITR group, but definitive restoration was done in the same visit. Two examiners evaluated the clinical and radiographic outcomes for 18 months. Success was defined as absence of signs and symptoms of irreversible pulpitis and absence of periapical alterations.

Read the detailed description

Introduction Preservation of pulp vitality while managing the deep carious lesions is often a great challenge and requires procedures like pulp capping and pulpotomy collectively termed as vital pulp therapy (VPT). Such treatment involves elimination of bacteria from pulp dentine complex and establishing an environment that will prevent any future bacterial contamination and improves survival prognosis. Management of deep carious lesions in recent years has changed from complete caries removal to partial caries removal. Partial caries removal has gained importance due to reduction in pulpal exposures, less postoperative complications, more preservation and maintenance of pulp tissue .

The important concern during VPT is accurate assessment of pulpal status. Methods to determine pulpal vitality include patient history, signs and symptoms, radiographs and pulp sensibility tests. One of the hallmarks of pulpal diagnosis is that it is difficult and has a high rate of inaccuracy. Pain on cold and hot stimuli cannot be considered as a reliable reference for making a treatment decision. Also insufficient evidence was found to determine the diagnostic accuracy of symptoms, signs, and diagnostic tests to assess the pulp status.

Studies using visual and histological inspection of exposed pulp to examine status of pulp reported marked variation in sensitivity of cold and electric pulp test from 0 .21 to 0.94, with relatively less variation in specificity from 0.73 to 0 .96.Sensitivity decreased to 67% when the spectrum of the disease was altered i.e. when asymptomatic teeth with deep carious lesions were included . Diagnosis of pulp status is often easy when there is a clear distinction between healthy and necrosed pulp however it is more difficult in asymptomatic teeth with deep carious lesions.

Recently, Coll et al. proposed that glass ionomer cement (GIC) as interim therapeutic restoration (ITR) improved pulpal diagnosis and VPT outcomes while interpreting diagnostic assessment based on clinical pulp therapy success. Vij et al. reported that GIC temporization for 1-3 months increased success of the subsequent VPT from 79% to 92% .However; both of the studies were retrospective and were in deciduous teeth.

No prospective clinical study has so far been conducted in permanent teeth that demonstrate the effectiveness of GIC and other adhesive restoration materials in determining the pulpal status. Aim of this double blinded randomized controlled trial was to assess the effectiveness of GIC interim restoration in determining the pulpal status of asymptomatic teeth with deep carious lesions. Null hypothesis was that GIC as ITR does not improve the clinician's diagnostic ability to determine the correct pulp clinical diagnosis and does not improve the treatment outcomes in vital pulp therapy.

Material and Methods:

Case Selection This prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Post Graduate Institute of Dental Sciences, Rohtak, India. The study protocol was approved by the Ethical Committee (PGIDS/IEC/2015/64) of the Post Graduate Institute of Dental Sciences. A total of 146 patients were included with an age range of 15-54 years. The inclusion criteria for the study were: 1) mature permanent mandibular molars having deep carious lesions involving half or more of the dentine detected by radiographic examination, 2) pulp sensibility confirmed using the electric pulp test (Digitest D626D; Parkell Electronics, New York, NY) and the cold test (Endo frost, Coltene, Whaledent), 3) absence of apical and furcal radiolucency determined by radiographic examination, 4) absence of clinical symptoms of irreversible symptoms, fistula, swelling and abnormal tooth mobility. Clinical diagnosis of vital pulp was made by the chief supervisor (Sanjay Tewari) on the basis of radiographic and clinical examination and the pulp sensibility tests. Patients were excluded if they presented with signs and symptoms of irreversible pulpitis, had negative response to vitality tests before or after ITR, diabetic, immunocompromised, pregnant, or had a positive history of antibiotic use in past one month or required antibiotic prophylaxis. Informed consent explaining benefits and risks of treatment was taken from patients before participation in the trial.

Sample Size Calculation and Randomization The sample size calculation was done on the basis of difference in the percentage of success of vital pulp therapy using GIC (98%) versus non-GIC group (75%) (12) α=5% with a power of 90%. This indicated the need for 48 restorations per treatment group. Given an expected attrition rate of 20%, 60 teeth were included in each treatment group. Randomization was developed to eliminate any bias on the part of the investigators and to equalize the number of patients between the 2 treatment groups. Using an equal proportion randomization allocation ratio, one of the investigators (M.J) created envelopes containing concealed assignment codes that were assigned sequentially to eligible patients.

Clinical Procedure The procedure was performed under local anesthesia and rubber dam isolation. Carious tissue from the lateral walls and dentinoenamel junction was removed completely by using low-speed metal burs and/or hand excavator. Superficial necrotic dentin was removed from the pulpal and axial wall using low speed round bur. A layer of soft, wet carious dentin was left adjacent to pulpal wall. The cavity was cleaned with distilled water and dried with sterile filter paper. In group ITR, the cavity was filled with GIC ( Ketac Molar (3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minn., USA).Cavity was reopened after 1 months in asymptomatic patients , restoration was removed completely ,base of resin modified glass ionomer cement(RMGIC) (Fuji Lining LC;GC,Tokyo,Japan)was applied and cavity was restored with resin composite(Tetric N-Ceram;Ivoclar Vivadent) according to manufacturer instructions.

In NON-ITR group, cavity preparation was done similar to ITR group, after partial caries excavation ,base of RMGIC (Fuji Lining LC;GC,Tokyo,Japan) was applied and all cavities were restored with resin composite(Tetric N-Ceram;Ivoclar Vivadent) according to manufacturer instructions.

Outcome Assessment Two blinded examiners assessed the clinical and radiographic outcomes of test and control treatments at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18 months after treatment. Success was defined as absence of signs and symptoms of irreversible pulpitis (spontaneous pain, fistula and swelling), positive response to pulp sensibility tests and absence of periapical alterations (radiolucency at furcal or periapical region, calcification) (combined outcome). Pretreatment pulpal diagnosis was considered successful when teeth treated with or without ITR were diagnosed as vital and none of clinical and radiographic signs and symptoms of failure developed during 18 month follow up.

Conditions
Pulpitis
Being tested
Restoration
Medical subject headings
Pulpitis

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • RestorationProcedure or surgery

    Also called Filling

Study groups in NCT03168620
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
ITR groupActive comparatorIn ITR group after partial caries removal(PCR), interim therapeutic restoration of glass ionomer cement (GIC) Ketac molar was placed for one month before definitive adhesive restoration
Receives: Procedure: Restoration
Non ITR groupActive comparatorIn NON-ITR group, cavity preparation was similar to ITR group, but definitive restoration was done in the same visit
Receives: Procedure: Restoration

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. clinical success

    Success was defined as absence of signs and symptoms of irreversible pulpitis (spontaneous pain, fistula and swelling), positive response to pulp sensibility tests.

    Measured: 18 months

  2. radiographic success

    Absence of periapical alterations (radiolucency at furcal or periapical region, calcification). Pretreatment pulpal diagnosis was considered successful when teeth treated with or without ITR were diagnosed as vital and radiographic signs and symptoms of failure developed.

    Measured: 18 months

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted30 May 2017
  2. Study start20 May 2015
  3. Primary completion30 Nov 2016
  4. Study completion30 Nov 2016

Resources

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
Diagnosis
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
Single blind
Who is masked
Outcomes assessor
Enrolment
146 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT03168620
Sponsor's protocol ID
Monikakhokhar
Status last verified
May 2017
First submitted
23 May 2017
Last updated
30 May 2017
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
Yes

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Restoration in people with Pulpitis, run by Postgraduate Institute of Dental Sciences Rohtak.

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 10 inclusion and 0 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 30 May 2017. 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 success (time frame: 18 months). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. 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 30 May 2017.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in