TrialReader


Traditional vs. Minimally Invasive Decay Treatments in Primary Molars: An 18-month Split-mouth Randomized Study

NCT07447583 — Not applicable, Completed, 60 participants, TC Erciyes University

ClinicalTrials Daily  ·  Areas  ·  Conditions  ·  Drugs  ·  Sponsors  ·  

An 18-Month Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing the Hall Technique, Silver Diamine Fluoride, and Compomer Restorations for the Management of Caries in Primary Molars in Children Aged 4-8 Years

RegistryNCT07447583, acronym MiCRO-PM
StatusCompleted
PhaseNot applicable
Study typeInterventional; randomized, parallel, masking: none, treatment
Enrollment60 (Actual)
SponsorTC Erciyes University (Other)
ConditionsDental Caries
InterventionsHall Technique, Silver diamine Fluoride 38%, Compomer Restoration (Procedure, drug)
Datesstart 2024-08-01, primary completion 2024-08-30, completion 2026-02-09, first posted 2026-03-03, last updated 2026-03-03
Locations1 site in Turkey (Türkiye)

Related Papers Related Patents Related Grants Related Experts
AI Assistant Save
All trials for Dental Caries All trials of Hall Technique All trials of Silver diamine Fluoride 38%

-Summary

The goal of this clinical trial is to compare the 18-month clinical success rates of three caries management approaches in primary molars of 60 healthy children aged 4-8 years attending the Department of Pediatric Dentistry at Erciyes University, using a randomized split-mouth design involving 180 treated teeth. The three approaches include the Hall Technique, Silver Diamine Fluoride, and the conventional "drill-and-fill" restorative approach using compomer material. The study will also evaluate pain perception during treatment, child behavior, and treatment acceptability from the perspectives of patients, parents, and dentists. The main questions it aims to answer are:

* Do minimally invasive approaches (Hall Technique and Silver Diamine Fluoride) achieve comparable or superior 18-month clinical success rates compared to the conventional drill-and-fill restorative treatment?
* Do minimally invasive approaches result in lower pain perception, improved child behavior, and greater treatment acceptability compared to the conventional drill-and-fill approach?

Researchers will compare the three treatment approaches applied to different teeth within the same child to see if minimally invasive methods provide similar or improved clinical outcomes and better patient-centered outcomes over 18 months compared to the conventional approach.

Participants will:

* Contribute three eligible primary molars per child (180 teeth in total).
* Have each tooth randomly assigned to one of the three treatment approaches following a split-mouth design.
* Receive all three interventions within the same participant, with each treatment applied to a different tooth.
* Attend scheduled follow-up visits at 1 month after completion of all interventions, and at 6, 12, and 18 months (final follow-up) for clinical and radiographic evaluation of each treated tooth.
* Provide assessments of pain perception and treatment experience, with additional evaluations completed by parents and treating dentists.

Expand all sections  ·  Collapse all

+Detailed description

This randomized split-mouth clinical trial was designed to evaluate and compare the clinical performance and patient-centered outcomes of three different caries management approaches in primary molars of children.

Dental caries remains one of the most prevalent chronic diseases in childhood. Minimally invasive strategies such as the Hall Technique (HT) and Silver Diamine Fluoride (SDF) have gained increasing attention as alternatives to conventional restorative treatment, particularly in young or anxious pediatric patients. However, comparative clinical data evaluating long-term outcomes and patient-centered measures between these approaches and conventional restorative treatment remain limited.

A total of 60 healthy children aged 4-8 years requiring restorative treatment for at least three primary molars were included. Using a split-mouth design, each child contributed three eligible primary molars (total: 180 teeth). Within each participant, teeth were randomly allocated to receive one of the following interventions:

Hall Technique (placement of a preformed metal crown without caries removal or tooth preparation)

Silver Diamine Fluoride application

Conventional caries removal followed by restoration using compomer material (drill-and-fill approach)

The split-mouth design was selected to minimize inter-individual variability by allowing direct intra-patient comparison of the three treatment modalities.

Clinical and radiographic evaluations were performed at 1 month after completion of all interventions and at 6, 12, and 18 months. The primary outcome measure was 18-month clinical success of each treated tooth. Secondary outcomes included pain perception during treatment, child behavior, and treatment acceptability as assessed by patients, parents, and treating dentists.

This study aims to provide comparative evidence regarding the effectiveness and acceptability of minimally invasive versus conventional restorative approaches in pediatric dentistry.

+Arms and interventions

ArmTypeInterventionsDescription
Hall TechniqueExperimentalProcedure: Hall TechniqueTeeth randomly allocated to this arm were treated using the Hall Technique for the management of carious lesions in primary molars. The intervention consisted of cementation of a preformed stainless-steel crown (3M ESPE, USA) using glass ionomer luting cement, without caries removal, tooth preparation, or local anesthesia. In this split-mouth randomized design, eligible teeth within the same child were allocated to different treatment arms. Clinical evaluations were performed at 1, 6, 12, and 18 months after crown placement.
Silver Diamine FluorideExperimentalDrug: Silver diamine Fluoride 38%Teeth randomly allocated to this arm were treated with 38% silver diamine fluoride for the management of carious lesions in primary molars. Unsupported enamel was removed and the cavity surface was cleaned using a rotary bristle brush prior to application. A 38% silver diamine fluoride solution with potassium iodide (Riva Star Aqua, SDI, Australia) was applied, followed by 22,600 ppm fluoride varnish (Duraphat, GABA, Germany). In this split-mouth randomized design, eligible teeth within the same child were allocated to different treatment arms. SDF applications were repeated at 6 and 12 months. Clinical evaluations were performed at 1, 6, 12, and 18 months.
Compomer RestorationExperimentalProcedure: Compomer RestorationTeeth randomly allocated to this arm were treated with conventional caries removal and restoration using compomer material for the management of carious lesions in primary molars. Complete caries removal was performed under local anesthesia when clinically indicated, followed by restoration with a compomer material (Dyract, Dentsply, Germany) according to the manufacturer's instructions. In this split-mouth randomized design, eligible teeth within the same child were allocated to different treatment arms. Clinical evaluations were performed at 1, 6, 12, and 18 months.
  • Hall Technique (Procedure), also known as Preformed Stainless Steel Crown, Stainless Steel Crown, SSC: Placement of a preformed stainless-steel crown (3M ESPE, USA) cemented with glass ionomer luting cement without tooth preparation, local anesthesia, or caries removal.
  • Silver diamine Fluoride 38% (Drug), also known as SDF, 38% SDF: Topical application of a two-step protocol using 38% water-based silver diamine fluoride (step 1) followed by potassium iodide (step 2) (Riva Star Aqua, SDI, Australia) on active cavitated caries lesions extending into dentine. Prior to application, unsupported enamel margins are removed to allow plaque access. The procedure is completed with the application of 22,600 ppm fluoride varnish (Duraphat, GABA, Germany). Applications are repeated at 6- and 12-month follow-up visits.
  • Compomer Restoration (Procedure), also known as Polyacid-Modified Composite Resin, Dyract: Complete caries removal followed by restoration with compomer material (Dyract, Dentsply, Germany) under local anesthesia as needed.

+Outcome measures

Primary outcomes

  • Clinical success rate at 18 months [18 months]: Proportion of treated teeth without clinical or radiographic signs of failure, defined as absence of pain, abscess, fistula, pathological mobility, restoration or crown loss, or caries progression requiring further intervention. Outcomes are assessed through clinical and radiographic examination.

Secondary outcomes

  • Pain perception during treatment [Periprocedural (Day 1)]: Child-reported pain perception assessed immediately after treatment using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of Faces. The scale ranges from 0 to 10, where 0 indicates no pain and 10 indicates worst possible pain. Higher scores indicate greater pain intensity.
  • Child behavior during treatment [Periprocedural (Day 1)]: Behavioral response assessed during treatment using the Frankl Behavior Rating Scale, a 4-point ordinal scale ranging from 1 (definitely negative) to 4 (definitely positive). Higher scores indicate more cooperative behavior. The treating dentist assigned the score based on observed cooperation during the procedure.
  • Child treatment acceptability [Periprocedural (Day 1)]: Child-reported treatment acceptability assessed immediately after treatment using a modified version of the Bell et al. (2010) questionnaire. The instrument consists of five items scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Higher scores indicate greater treatment acceptability.
  • Parental treatment acceptability [Periprocedural (Day 1)]: Parent-reported treatment acceptability assessed immediately after treatment using a five-item questionnaire scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Higher scores indicate greater treatment acceptability.

Other outcomes

  • Change in occlusal vertical dimension (OVD) after Hall Technique [Baseline, immediately after treatment, and 1 month after crown placement]: Occlusal vertical dimension (OVD) is assessed only in teeth treated with the Hall Technique. Measurements are performed using a digital vernier caliper to determine the vertical distance between the lowest point of the gingival margin of the lower canine and the tip of the corresponding upper canine on the treated side. If canines are absent, contralateral canines or first primary molars are used as reference. OVD is recorded before crown placement, immediately after treatment, and at 1-month follow-up to evaluate resolution of occlusal changes.

+Eligibility

Sex: All, ages: 4 Years to 8 Years

Inclusion Criteria:

* Children aged 4 to 8 years.
* Systemically healthy children without any medical or syndromic conditions.
* Frankl Behavior Rating Scale score of 3 (positive) or 4 (definitely positive).
* Presence of at least three unrestored, asymptomatic primary molars with active occluso-proximal dentine caries lesions (ICDAS codes 3, 4, or 5).
* Written informed consent obtained from parents or legal guardians, with willingness to attend follow-up visits.

Exclusion Criteria:

* Refusal to provide informed consent or unwillingness to participate.
* Presence of systemic disease or chronic medical conditions requiring special care or antibiotic prophylaxis.
* Teeth presenting mobility, symptoms, abscess, or tenderness to percussion.
* Radiographic evidence of pulpal pathology.
* Non-restorable teeth.
* Children with severe lack of cooperation (Frankl score 1 or 2).
* Refusal of treatment for aesthetic reasons by the parent or child.

+Locations (1)

FacilityCityCountryStatus
Erciyes University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Pediatric DentistryKayseri, KayseriTurkey (Türkiye)

+Publications

  • Narbutaite J, Santamaria RM, Innes N, Splieth CH, Maciulskiene V. Comparison of three management approaches for dental caries in primary molars: A two-year randomized clinical trial. J Dent. 2024 Nov;150:105390. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105390. Epub 2024 Oct 5. PMID 39374732
  • Seifo N, Cassie H, Radford JR, Innes NPT. Silver diamine fluoride for managing carious lesions: an umbrella review. BMC Oral Health. 2019 Jul 12;19(1):145. doi: 10.1186/s12903-019-0830-5. PMID 31299955
  • BaniHani A, Santamaria RM, Hu S, Maden M, Albadri S. Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2022 Oct;23(5):667-693. doi: 10.1007/s40368-021-00675-6. Epub 2021 Nov 16. PMID 34784027
  • Araujo MP, Innes NP, Bonifacio CC, Hesse D, Olegario IC, Mendes FM, Raggio DP. Atraumatic restorative treatment compared to the Hall Technique for occluso-proximal carious lesions in primary molars; 36-month follow-up of a randomised control trial in a school setting. BMC Oral Health. 2020 Nov 11;20(1):318. doi: 10.1186/s12903-020-01298-x. PMID 33176756
  • Santamaria RM, Innes NPT, Machiulskiene V, Schmoeckel J, Alkilzy M, Splieth CH. Alternative Caries Management Options for Primary Molars: 2.5-Year Outcomes of a Randomised Clinical Trial. Caries Res. 2017;51(6):605-614. doi: 10.1159/000477855. Epub 2017 Dec 20. PMID 29258064
  • Elamin F, Abdelazeem N, Salah I, Mirghani Y, Wong F. A randomized clinical trial comparing Hall vs conventional technique in placing preformed metal crowns from Sudan. PLoS One. 2019 Jun 3;14(6):e0217740. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217740. eCollection 2019. PMID 31158253
  • Hu S, BaniHani A, Nevitt S, Maden M, Santamaria RM, Albadri S. Hall technique for primary teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2022 Nov;58:286-297. doi: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2022.09.003. Epub 2022 Sep 27. PMID 36185501
  • Kassebaum NJ, Bernabe E, Dahiya M, Bhandari B, Murray CJ, Marcenes W. Global burden of untreated caries: a systematic review and metaregression. J Dent Res. 2015 May;94(5):650-8. doi: 10.1177/0022034515573272. Epub 2015 Mar 4. PMID 25740856

+Investigators

My Notes