search
Back to results

Comparison of ACTIVA BioACTIVE Versus Compomer in Restoring Dental Decay in Primary Molar Teeth

Primary Purpose

Dental Caries in Children

Status
Completed
Phase
Phase 4
Locations
Belgium
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE
Compomer
Sponsored by
University Ghent
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional treatment trial for Dental Caries in Children focused on measuring Dental caries, Class II, Primary molar, Restorative material, Bioactive material, Compomer, Activa bioactive, Ryge criteria

Eligibility Criteria

3 Years - 10 Years (Child)All SexesAccepts Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Healthy children with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I score from both gender aged between three and ten years
  • Vital decayed deciduous molar with proximal enamel/dentine caries
  • At least one decayed tooth on each side of the mouth (split mouth)
  • Pt is treatable in the dental chair
  • Parents agreed to participate in the study and signed the informed consent

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients with medical conditions or systemic disease
  • Anxious or uncooperative patients who are not treatable in the dental chair
  • Any symptoms like: pain, swelling, abscess or fistula.
  • Extensive caries, dental developmental disturbance, pathological mobility, pulp exposure or indication for pulp therapy
  • Patients with one decayed tooth in the whole mouth (not split mouth)

Sites / Locations

  • Ghent University hospital

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Experimental

Active Comparator

Arm Label

ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE

Compomer

Arm Description

Restoring cavity using ACTIVA filling material

Restoring cavity using compomer filling material

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Clinical evaluation
Check the filling clinically based on United States Public Health Ryge criteria by a blinded and calibrated assessor
Clinical evaluation
Check the filling clinically based on United States Public Health Ryge criteria by a blinded and calibrated assessor
Radiographic evaluation
Check the filling radiographically based on Rx photo by a blinded and calibrated assessor

Secondary Outcome Measures

Time needed to place the filling material
Time since start placing the filling material until finishing the restoration is recorded and compared between the two groups to investigate whether both materials take the same time to be placed in the oral cavity.

Full Information

First Posted
April 22, 2018
Last Updated
December 2, 2021
Sponsor
University Ghent
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT03516838
Brief Title
Comparison of ACTIVA BioACTIVE Versus Compomer in Restoring Dental Decay in Primary Molar Teeth
Official Title
Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of a New Bioactive Ionic Resin Material (ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE) Versus Compomer for Class II Restorations in Primary Molars: A Split Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
December 2021
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
January 2017 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
December 2018 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
December 2018 (Actual)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Sponsor
Name of the Sponsor
University Ghent

4. Oversight

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
Yes
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
No
Product Manufactured in and Exported from the U.S.
Yes
Data Monitoring Committee
Yes

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
A clinical trial to evaluate a filling material (ACTIVA) and compare it to a traditional filling material (compomer) to restore decayed deciduous teeth in children
Detailed Description
A tooth decay in deciduous teeth has to be restored with proper filling material. ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE is a new filling material which has the ability to release and recharge fluoride in the oral cavity which is important for preventing further tooth decay. In this study we will compare this new filling material with Compomer (the traditional control filling material) by restoring decayed deciduous molars with one of the mentioned filling materials. Both filling materials have no reported adverse effect and used regularly in the dental practice. The treatment procedure is performed in healthy children from both genders with decayed deciduous molars aged between 5 to 10 years by one operator in the dental chair under local anesthesia in the department of pediatric dentistry and special care, Ghent University hospital, Ghent, Belgium. At least 35 teeth is needed to demonstrate an effect. Each material is placed randomly based on randomization done by the computer. Each participant will receive both types of treatments, one type on each side of the mouth. The participants will come back each six months to check the success of each treatment group by two trained dentists other than the operator. and to check whether the control group performs similar, better or worse than the control group. The duration of treatment procedure of both treatment groups is recorded and compared to check if one filling material takes less time than the other to placed in the oral cavity.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Dental Caries in Children
Keywords
Dental caries, Class II, Primary molar, Restorative material, Bioactive material, Compomer, Activa bioactive, Ryge criteria

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Phase 4
Interventional Study Model
Crossover Assignment
Model Description
Experimental prospective double blinded split-mouth randomized controlled trial . Each patient receive both types of treatment in the oral cavity, one type of the treatment on each side. The patients act as their control
Masking
ParticipantOutcomes Assessor
Masking Description
During treatment, the type of filling material was concealed from the patient, and the patient had no information which material was used in each side of the mouth. The type of material was not mentioned in the patient's file. Instead, it was replaced by a combination which the outcomes assessors were not familiar with. The operator was also blinded for the type of restoration during tooth preparation and was informed only at the time of restoration placement. The purpose of this discretion was to ensure double blinding both at the patient, as well as the outcomes assessor level.
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
35 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Restoring cavity using ACTIVA filling material
Arm Title
Compomer
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
Restoring cavity using compomer filling material
Intervention Type
Drug
Intervention Name(s)
ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE
Other Intervention Name(s)
ACTIVA
Intervention Description
Restorative Dental Material: Permanent resin containing filling dental material with bioactive properties to restore decayed teeth
Intervention Type
Drug
Intervention Name(s)
Compomer
Other Intervention Name(s)
Dyract
Intervention Description
Restorative Dental Material: Permanent resin containing filling dental material to restore decayed teeth
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Clinical evaluation
Description
Check the filling clinically based on United States Public Health Ryge criteria by a blinded and calibrated assessor
Time Frame
6 months follow-up
Title
Clinical evaluation
Description
Check the filling clinically based on United States Public Health Ryge criteria by a blinded and calibrated assessor
Time Frame
12 months follow-up
Title
Radiographic evaluation
Description
Check the filling radiographically based on Rx photo by a blinded and calibrated assessor
Time Frame
12 months follow-up
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Time needed to place the filling material
Description
Time since start placing the filling material until finishing the restoration is recorded and compared between the two groups to investigate whether both materials take the same time to be placed in the oral cavity.
Time Frame
Immediately after each intervention

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
3 Years
Maximum Age & Unit of Time
10 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: Healthy children with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I score from both gender aged between three and ten years Vital decayed deciduous molar with proximal enamel/dentine caries At least one decayed tooth on each side of the mouth (split mouth) Pt is treatable in the dental chair Parents agreed to participate in the study and signed the informed consent Exclusion Criteria: Patients with medical conditions or systemic disease Anxious or uncooperative patients who are not treatable in the dental chair Any symptoms like: pain, swelling, abscess or fistula. Extensive caries, dental developmental disturbance, pathological mobility, pulp exposure or indication for pulp therapy Patients with one decayed tooth in the whole mouth (not split mouth)
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Luc Martens, PhD
Organizational Affiliation
PaeCoMeDis Research group,Ghent University Hospital
Official's Role
Study Director
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Ghent University hospital
City
Ghent
State/Province
Flanders
ZIP/Postal Code
9000
Country
Belgium

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Plan to Share IPD
Yes
IPD Sharing Plan Description
The data will be available in the literature in the manuscript after publication
IPD Sharing Time Frame
After publication

Learn more about this trial

Comparison of ACTIVA BioACTIVE Versus Compomer in Restoring Dental Decay in Primary Molar Teeth

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs