Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-25 @ 12:04 AM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-30 @ 11:22 AM
Study NCT ID:
NCT01797458
Status:
COMPLETED
Last Update Posted:
2022-09-07
First Post:
2013-02-20
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
True
Has Adverse Events:
True
Brief Title:
European Study on Three Different Approaches to Managing Class 2 Cavities in Primary Teeth
Sponsor:
University Medicine Greifswald
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Randomised Control Trial on Three Different Approaches to Managing Class 2 Cavities in Primary Teeth
Status:
COMPLETED
Status Verified Date:
2022-08
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
The purpose of this randomized clinical trial is to compare the clinical effectiveness of three treatments involving different caries management strategies (conventional restorations, Hall technique, and Non-Restorative Caries Treatment) to the management of class II carious primary molars in children (3-8 year-old).
Detailed Description:
At present, many materials and techniques are used to treat carious primary teeth. All of these have their proponents who claim they provide the best performance in terms of longevity, aesthetics, bio-compatibility, etc (Qvist, 2010; Yengopal et al., 2009). However, despite the great variety of techniques and materials, there is no definite evidence for the most effective approach when dental caries in primary molars is concerned, as yet. On the other hand, there is conclusive evidence that shows that glass-ionomer cement is an inappropriate material for class II restorations in primary teeth, due to its significant shorter longevity compared with other restorative materials like compomer and amalgam.
Recently, there is re-surging interest in more biological (less-invasive) techniques: such as the Non-Restorative Caries Treatment (Peretz \& Gluck, 2006; Gruythuysen et al., 2010) or stainless steel crowns with the advent of the Hall technique in Scotland (Innes et al., 2007). However, there is lack of comparative evidence from high quality clinical trials leading to uncertainty in the effectiveness of these techniques. In addition, these techniques are rarely compared with standard fillings.
Recently, there is re-surging interest in more biological (less-invasive) techniques: such as the Non-Restorative Caries Treatment (Peretz \& Gluck, 2006; Gruythuysen et al., 2010) or stainless steel crowns with the advent of the Hall technique in Scotland (Innes et al., 2007). However, there is lack of comparative evidence from high quality clinical trials leading to uncertainty in the effectiveness of these techniques. In addition, these techniques are rarely compared with standard fillings.
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
None
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?:
Secondary ID Infos
| Secondary ID | Type | Domain | Link | View |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The 3,2,1 Study | OTHER | Ernst-Moritz-Universität Greifswald | View |