Clinical Criteria for the Evaluation of Caries Lesions Around Restorations in Primary Teeth (CARDEC-03) (CARDEC-03)
Primary Purpose
Dental Caries, Secondary Dental Caries
Status
Completed
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
Brazil
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Dental treatment
Sponsored by
About this trial
This is an interventional diagnostic trial for Dental Caries focused on measuring Diagnosis, Visual inspection, Quality of Life, Restorations
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
- Children who sought dental treatment in our dental school (School of Dentistry, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil)
- Children aged 3 to 6 years
- Children with at least one restoration on a primary tooth of any material, on any dental surface and regardless of its condition.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Children whose parents refuse to participate of the research
- Children who refuse to participate of the research or exhibited behavioral problems during the initial appointment
- All child's restorations will be included in the evaluation, except for restorations presenting fistula, abscess, pulp exposure, history of spontaneous dental pain or mobility.
Sites / Locations
- School of Dentistry, University of Sao Paulo
Arms of the Study
Arm 1
Arm 2
Arm Type
Experimental
Experimental
Arm Label
International Dental Federation
Caries Around Restorations System
Arm Description
Dental Treatment: according to the decision based on the International Dental Federation (FDI) criteria
Dental Treatment: according to the decision based on the Caries Around Restorations System (CARS) and treatment decision proposed by the International Caries Classification and Management System (ICCMS)
Outcomes
Primary Outcome Measures
Restoration survival
Major failures of restorations: restorations presenting failures that need replacement or teeth with pulp involvement, pain or that need extraction (except due to orthodontic reasons). For restorations involving occlusal surfaces, score 4 of Frencken et al. criteria (1996) will be considered. For restorations involving other surfaces, the scores 21, 30, and 40.
The primary outcome was changed due to the COVID-19 pandemic situation. As we were not able to assess patients' restorations at 24 months, we could not evaluate the need for operative treatment at this time. Therefore, restoration survival was set as the primary outcome, as we can determine the restoration failure by the assessment date.
Secondary Outcome Measures
Operative treatment needs of the evaluated restorations (success of restoration)
The necessity to repair the evaluated restorations during the follow-up examinations will be assessed by the Roeleveld et al. (1996) criteria (scores 11, 12, 13 and 30) or Frencken et al. (1996) criteria (scores 2 and 3). The criteria are described below:
Roeleveld et al. (1996): Score 11 - Restoration present, defect at the margin and/or wear of the surface; > 0.5 mm in depth, repair needed; Score 12 - Restoration present; underfilled > 0.5 mm, no gap, repair needed; Score 13 - Restoration overfilled > 0.5 mm, repair needed; Score 30 - Restoration not present, bulk fracture, loose, (partly) lost; repair needed (if still possible without exposing the pulp).
Frencken et al. (2006): Score 2 - Restoration present, marginal defect between 0.5mm and 1.0 mm, repair needed. Score 3 - Restoration present, marginal defect between > 1.0 mm, repair needed.
Necessity to repair the restoration
The necessity to repair the evaluated restorations during the follow-up examinations will be assessed by the Roeleveld et al. (1996) criteria (scores 11, 12, 13 and 30) or Frencken et al. (1996) criteria (scores 2 and 3). The criteria of the respective scores are described below:
Roeleveld et al. (1996) Score 11 - Restoration present, defect at the margin and/or wear of the surface; > 0.5 mm in depth, repair needed. Score 12 - Restoration present; underfilled > 0.5 mm, no gap, repair needed. Score 13 - Restoration overfilled > 0.5 mm, repair needed. Score 30 - Restoration not present, bulk fracture, loose, (partly) lost; repair needed (if still possible without exposing the pulp). Frencken et al. (2006) Score 2 - Restoration present, marginal defect between 0.5mm and 1.0 mm, repair needed. Score 3 - Restoration present, marginal defect between > 1.0 mm, repair needed.
Restoration replacement
Necessity of restoration replacement due to restoration loss (total or partial), with no signs of pulp involvement. For restorations involving occlusal surfaces, score 4 of Frencken et al. criteria (1996) will be considered. For restorations involving other surfaces, the scores 21, and 30.
Presence of secondary caries lesion with dentin exposure
Caries lesion with dentin exposure around evaluated restorations detected in the follow-up examinations will be assessed by the Roeleveld et al. criteria (scores 20 and 21). The criteria of the respective scores are described below:
Score 20 - Secondary caries, discoloration in depth, surface hard and intact, caries within dentin; repair needed. Score 21 - Secondary caries. Surface defect, caries within dentin; repair needed. Frencken criteria system does not deal with this aspect. Therefore, we considered the same parameters described above
Restored teeth that presents symptoms of pulp inflammation or episode of pain
The restored teeth that presents symptoms of pulp inflammation or episode of pain during the follow-up examinations and need to be extracted will be assessed by the Roeleveld et al. criteria (score 40) for all types of restorations. The criteria of the respective score is described below:
Score 40 - Inflammation of the pulp (restoration still in situ, not categorized in the former categories); fistula or severe pain complaints; extraction needed.
Full Information
NCT ID
NCT03520309
First Posted
March 6, 2018
Last Updated
October 14, 2021
Sponsor
University of Sao Paulo
Collaborators
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
1. Study Identification
Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT03520309
Brief Title
Clinical Criteria for the Evaluation of Caries Lesions Around Restorations in Primary Teeth (CARDEC-03)
Acronym
CARDEC-03
Official Title
CARies DEtection in Children 03 - The Impact of Two Different Clinical Criteria for the Evaluation of Caries Lesions Around Restorations in Primary Teeth
Study Type
Interventional
2. Study Status
Record Verification Date
October 2021
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
November 16, 2017 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
November 30, 2018 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
September 15, 2021 (Actual)
3. Sponsor/Collaborators
Responsible Party, by Official Title
Principal Investigator
Name of the Sponsor
University of Sao Paulo
Collaborators
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
4. Oversight
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
No
5. Study Description
Brief Summary
There is still great divergence in the aspects related to caries lesions around restorations. The methods and the systems used for the detection of secondary caries lesions have presented low validity. Also, the consequent treatment decisions of this kind of lesions have presented a lot of variation. However, the correct diagnosis of secondary caries may guarantee greater longevity to the restorative treatment, as well as oral health to the patients, reducing the cost and clinical time of the dentists. Therefore, the investigators aimed to perform this study to evaluate and compare two visual criteria for the evaluation of restorations in primary teeth in medium and long term outcomes for the patients, through a randomized clinical study. These criteria are the system proposed by the World Dental Federation (FDI) and the International Caries Classification and Management System - ICCMS.
Detailed Description
Among the available diagnosis criteria to detect caries lesions around restorations, there are the World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria and the International Caries Classification and Management System - ICCMS. However, few studies have evaluated the accuracy of both methods. The impact of the use of these methods in the treatment decisions regarding the restorations was also not evaluated. In relation to the detection of caries lesions around restorations in primary teeth, no randomized clinical study was performed, so the aim of this study is to establish the best diagnosis and treatment decision to caries around restorations in children. For this, three different studies will be carried out according the following specific aims: (1) to evaluate the accuracy of the FDI criteria and the system proposed by the ICCMS for the evaluation of caries lesions around restorations in primary teeth through a cross-sectional study design; (2) to evaluate the impact and cost of using these two criteria in treatment decisions related to the evaluation of restorations in primary teeth through a cross-sectional study design; (3) to evaluate the influence of the use of these two criteria for the evaluation of restorations in primary teeth in medium and long term outcomes for the patients, through a randomized clinical trial. To reach these objectives 626 restorations will be evaluated in children from 3 to 10 years who have looked for dental treatment in our dental school. They will be randomly allocated in two groups according to the diagnostic strategy used for caries detection around restorations: diagnosis and treatment decision based on the criteria of the International Dental Federation (FDI) (control group) or diagnosis and treatment decision based on the CARS detection criteria and treatment decision proposed by the ICCMS (experimental group). The consequent treatment decision of the restorations will be divided into no restorative intervention; repair or replacement of the restorations. Children will be treated by dentists, blinded to the criteria used to reach the treatment decision and then, will be monitored for two years. Reassessments will be performed by a blind examiner in relation to the child's allocation group, and the occurrence of outcomes will be assessed according to predefined criteria described for evaluation of restorations performed in the context of atraumatic restorative treatment. The primary outcome will be the need for restorative intervention during the follow-up of the restorations evaluated by the different criteria. This outcome is composed of several components. The reference standard will be the presence of caries lesion adjacent to the restoration after removal of the restoration, and their occurrence will be compared among the methods by survival analysis.
6. Conditions and Keywords
Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Dental Caries, Secondary Dental Caries
Keywords
Diagnosis, Visual inspection, Quality of Life, Restorations
7. Study Design
Primary Purpose
Diagnostic
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
ParticipantCare ProviderOutcomes Assessor
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
163 (Actual)
8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions
Arm Title
International Dental Federation
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Dental Treatment: according to the decision based on the International Dental Federation (FDI) criteria
Arm Title
Caries Around Restorations System
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Dental Treatment: according to the decision based on the Caries Around Restorations System (CARS) and treatment decision proposed by the International Caries Classification and Management System (ICCMS)
Intervention Type
Procedure
Intervention Name(s)
Dental treatment
Intervention Description
Treatment of all dental restorations of the children according to the diagnosis criteria
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Restoration survival
Description
Major failures of restorations: restorations presenting failures that need replacement or teeth with pulp involvement, pain or that need extraction (except due to orthodontic reasons). For restorations involving occlusal surfaces, score 4 of Frencken et al. criteria (1996) will be considered. For restorations involving other surfaces, the scores 21, 30, and 40.
The primary outcome was changed due to the COVID-19 pandemic situation. As we were not able to assess patients' restorations at 24 months, we could not evaluate the need for operative treatment at this time. Therefore, restoration survival was set as the primary outcome, as we can determine the restoration failure by the assessment date.
Time Frame
24 months
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Operative treatment needs of the evaluated restorations (success of restoration)
Description
The necessity to repair the evaluated restorations during the follow-up examinations will be assessed by the Roeleveld et al. (1996) criteria (scores 11, 12, 13 and 30) or Frencken et al. (1996) criteria (scores 2 and 3). The criteria are described below:
Roeleveld et al. (1996): Score 11 - Restoration present, defect at the margin and/or wear of the surface; > 0.5 mm in depth, repair needed; Score 12 - Restoration present; underfilled > 0.5 mm, no gap, repair needed; Score 13 - Restoration overfilled > 0.5 mm, repair needed; Score 30 - Restoration not present, bulk fracture, loose, (partly) lost; repair needed (if still possible without exposing the pulp).
Frencken et al. (2006): Score 2 - Restoration present, marginal defect between 0.5mm and 1.0 mm, repair needed. Score 3 - Restoration present, marginal defect between > 1.0 mm, repair needed.
Time Frame
24 months.
Title
Necessity to repair the restoration
Description
The necessity to repair the evaluated restorations during the follow-up examinations will be assessed by the Roeleveld et al. (1996) criteria (scores 11, 12, 13 and 30) or Frencken et al. (1996) criteria (scores 2 and 3). The criteria of the respective scores are described below:
Roeleveld et al. (1996) Score 11 - Restoration present, defect at the margin and/or wear of the surface; > 0.5 mm in depth, repair needed. Score 12 - Restoration present; underfilled > 0.5 mm, no gap, repair needed. Score 13 - Restoration overfilled > 0.5 mm, repair needed. Score 30 - Restoration not present, bulk fracture, loose, (partly) lost; repair needed (if still possible without exposing the pulp). Frencken et al. (2006) Score 2 - Restoration present, marginal defect between 0.5mm and 1.0 mm, repair needed. Score 3 - Restoration present, marginal defect between > 1.0 mm, repair needed.
Time Frame
24 months.
Title
Restoration replacement
Description
Necessity of restoration replacement due to restoration loss (total or partial), with no signs of pulp involvement. For restorations involving occlusal surfaces, score 4 of Frencken et al. criteria (1996) will be considered. For restorations involving other surfaces, the scores 21, and 30.
Time Frame
24 months.
Title
Presence of secondary caries lesion with dentin exposure
Description
Caries lesion with dentin exposure around evaluated restorations detected in the follow-up examinations will be assessed by the Roeleveld et al. criteria (scores 20 and 21). The criteria of the respective scores are described below:
Score 20 - Secondary caries, discoloration in depth, surface hard and intact, caries within dentin; repair needed. Score 21 - Secondary caries. Surface defect, caries within dentin; repair needed. Frencken criteria system does not deal with this aspect. Therefore, we considered the same parameters described above
Time Frame
24 months.
Title
Restored teeth that presents symptoms of pulp inflammation or episode of pain
Description
The restored teeth that presents symptoms of pulp inflammation or episode of pain during the follow-up examinations and need to be extracted will be assessed by the Roeleveld et al. criteria (score 40) for all types of restorations. The criteria of the respective score is described below:
Score 40 - Inflammation of the pulp (restoration still in situ, not categorized in the former categories); fistula or severe pain complaints; extraction needed.
Time Frame
24 months.
Other Pre-specified Outcome Measures:
Title
Impact of Oral Health on quality of life
Description
Impact of Oral Health on quality of life of the children participants in the study will be assessed through the questionnaire "Early Childhood Oral Health Impact Scale" (ECOHIS). The questionnaire is answered by the parents and contains 13 questions, divided into two sections: a child impact section with 4 domains (child symptoms, function, psychological, and self-image/social interaction domains) and a family impact section with 2 domains (parental distress and family function). Respondents answer the questions using a rating scale from 0 to 5, and total scores can range from 0 to 52. Score r corresponds to the "don't know" answer. Higher ECOHIS scores are indicative of greater negative impacts of oral health problems on quality of life. The questionnaire will be applied at the baseline and after 24 months of follow-up, preferentially to the same parent who responded the first questionnaire.
Time Frame
24 months
Title
Cost of the treatments
Description
The cost of the treatments performed during the follow-up per child considering the teeth included in our sample.
Time Frame
24 months
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:
Children who sought dental treatment in our dental school (School of Dentistry, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil)
Children aged 3 to 6 years
Children with at least one restoration on a primary tooth of any material, on any dental surface and regardless of its condition.
Exclusion Criteria:
Children whose parents refuse to participate of the research
Children who refuse to participate of the research or exhibited behavioral problems during the initial appointment
All child's restorations will be included in the evaluation, except for restorations presenting fistula, abscess, pulp exposure, history of spontaneous dental pain or mobility.
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Fausto M Mendes, PhD
Organizational Affiliation
School of Dentistry, University of Sao Paulo
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
School of Dentistry, University of Sao Paulo
City
Sao Paulo
ZIP/Postal Code
05508-000
Country
Brazil
12. IPD Sharing Statement
Citations:
PubMed Identifier
26391116
Citation
Ismail AI, Pitts NB, Tellez M; Authors of International Caries Classification and Management System (ICCMS); Banerjee A, Deery C, Douglas G, Eggertsson H, Ekstrand K, Ellwood R, Gomez J, Jablonski-Momeni A, Kolker J, Longbottom C, Manton D, Martignon S, McGrady M, Rechmann P, Ricketts D, Sohn W, Thompson V, Twetman S, Weyant R, Wolff M, Zandona A. The International Caries Classification and Management System (ICCMS) An Example of a Caries Management Pathway. BMC Oral Health. 2015;15 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S9. doi: 10.1186/1472-6831-15-S1-S9. Epub 2015 Sep 15. No abstract available.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
20847997
Citation
Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, Mjor I, Bayne S, Peters M, Hiller KA, Randall R, Vanherle G, Heintze SD. FDI World Dental Federation - clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations. Update and clinical examples. J Adhes Dent. 2010 Aug;12(4):259-72. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a19262.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
22331162
Citation
Martins-Junior PA, Ramos-Jorge J, Paiva SM, Marques LS, Ramos-Jorge ML. Validations of the Brazilian version of the Early Childhood Oral Health Impact Scale (ECOHIS). Cad Saude Publica. 2012 Feb;28(2):367-74. doi: 10.1590/s0102-311x2012000200015.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
20379434
Citation
Shivakumar K, Prasad S, Chandu G. International Caries Detection and Assessment System: A new paradigm in detection of dental caries. J Conserv Dent. 2009 Jan;12(1):10-6. doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.53335.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
17140533
Citation
Roeleveld AC, van Amerongen WE, Mandari GJ. Influence of residual caries and cervical gaps on the survival rate of Class II glass ionomer restorations. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2006 Jun;7(2):85-91. doi: 10.1007/BF03320820.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
36217147
Citation
Olegario IC, Moro BLP, Tedesco TK, Freitas RD, Passaro AL, Garbim JR, Oliveira R, Mendes FM; CARDEC 03 collaborative group; Raggio DP. Use of rubber dam versus cotton roll isolation on composite resin restorations' survival in primary molars: 2-year results from a non-inferiority clinical trial. BMC Oral Health. 2022 Oct 10;22(1):440. doi: 10.1186/s12903-022-02449-y.
Results Reference
derived
PubMed Identifier
35504257
Citation
Moro BLP, Pontes LRA, Maia HC, Freitas RD, Tedesco TK, Raggio DP, Braga MM, Ekstrand KR, Imparato JCP, Cenci MS, Mendes FM. Clinical Accuracy of Two Different Criteria for the Detection of Caries Lesions around Restorations in Primary Teeth. Caries Res. 2022;56(2):98-108. doi: 10.1159/000523951. Epub 2022 May 3.
Results Reference
derived
PubMed Identifier
34772437
Citation
Freitas RD, Moro BLP, Pontes LRA, Maia HCM, Passaro AL, Oliveira RC, Garbim JR, Vigano MEF, Tedesco TK, Deery C, Raggio DP, Cenci MS, Mendes FM, Braga MM; CARDEC collaborative group - CARDEC-03 trial. The economic impact of two diagnostic strategies in the management of restorations in primary teeth: a health economic analysis plan for a trial-based economic evaluation. Trials. 2021 Nov 12;22(1):794. doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05722-7.
Results Reference
derived
PubMed Identifier
33520191
Citation
Moro BLP, Signori C, Freitas RD, Pontes LRA, Lenzi TL, Tedesco TK, Raggio DP, Braga MM, Ekstrand KR, Cenci MS, Mendes FM; CARDEC collaborative group; CaCIA collaborative group. The effect of two clinical criteria in the assessment of caries lesions around restorations in children (CARDEC-03): study protocol for a diagnostic randomized clinical trial. F1000Res. 2020 Jun 26;9:650. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.23801.3. eCollection 2020.
Results Reference
derived
Learn more about this trial
Clinical Criteria for the Evaluation of Caries Lesions Around Restorations in Primary Teeth (CARDEC-03)
We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs