Efficacy of Hall Technique in Atypical Lesions on Primary Teeth

Overview

Atypical carious cavities could be defined as carious lesions in more than 2 surfaces of the same tooth. Dental practitioners have shown difficulties related to material's maintenance in such type of cavities and therefore, several treatment options have been used. However, most of them have shown a great failure percentage. A randomized clinical trial will be developed with the objective of assessing the Hall technique in comparison with the composite resin incremental technique in 364 primary molars' atypical carious lesions of children between 4 and 9 years old. Initially, two previously calibrated examiners will perform caries diagnosis by means of visual assessment and intraoral examination. Selected teeth will be randomly allocated into two groups. Teeth in the first group will be submitted to prefabricated stainless steel crowns treatment (Hall technique); and the other, to composite resin incremental technique, which will be always placed under rubber dam isolation. Lesions' clinical and radiographic follow-up will be conducted after 6 and 12 months. Treatment's efficacy will be assessed by means of four main outcomes: 1. Longevity, marginal adaptation, possible modification in patients' vertical dimension, and caries lesion progression; 2. Patient-focused criteria (satisfaction, discomfort and quality of life impact); 3. cost-efficacy; and 4. Treatment-related parents', children' and operators' perception. Other variables could be further analysed as secondary outcomes, such as techniques performing time among operators, impact of the socio-economic characteristics on restorations' longevity, and restorations' type impact on the antagonist tooth. Comparisons between groups will be addressed using the Kaplan-Meier survival test as well as Long-Rank test. Cox Regression will be used to enable the assessment of other variables' influence in the results. Significance value of 5% will be adopted for all analysis.

Full Title of Study: “Efficacy of Hall Technique in Atypical Lesions on Primary Teeth: Randomized Clinical Trial”

Study Type

  • Study Type: Interventional
  • Study Design
    • Allocation: Randomized
    • Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
    • Primary Purpose: Treatment
    • Masking: None (Open Label)
  • Study Primary Completion Date: November 2016

Interventions

  • Other: Dental Restoration with Stainless Crown
    • Lesions allocated to this group will be treated with stainless dental crowns according to the Hall Technique protocol (Evans & Innes, 2010).
  • Other: Dental Restoration with Composite Resin
    • Surfaces allocated to this group will be treated with composite resin (Z250, 3M ESPE, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Initially, local anesthesia and rubber dam adaptation will be performed. Then, 37% phosphoric acid will be applied on the surface for 15 seconds, followed by spray of water/air for at least 15 seconds. Then, the adhesive system (Single Bond, 3M ESPE, USA) will be applied and light cured according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Finally, composite resin (Z250, 3M ESPE, USA) will be applied and light cured according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

Arms, Groups and Cohorts

  • Experimental: Hall Technique
    • single placement of stainless dental crowns on atypical cavities
  • Active Comparator: Composite Resin
    • single placement of composite resin on atypical cavities

Clinical Trial Outcome Measures

Primary Measures

  • Clinical longevity of restoration
    • Time Frame: Change from baseline until 6 and 12 months
    • The clinical evaluation will be performed by the non-blinded examiners. The examiner will use the criteria proposed by Innes et al. (2007) for both interventions.

Secondary Measures

  • Change in patient’s vertical dimension
    • Time Frame: Baseline, 30 days, 6 and 12 months
    • The patient’s vertical dimension will be measured with a probe (Williams 14, Hu-Friedy Mfg. Co., United Kingdom) according to the protocol described by van der Zee & van Amerongen (2010).
  • Antagonist’s level of intrusion
    • Time Frame: Baseline, 6 and 12 months
    • The crown of the antagonist tooth to the treated tooth will be measured with a calliper and a ruler in cervico-occlusal direction (starting on the concave region of the gingival margin up to the center of the occlusal edge), as proposed by Miraglia et al. (2002) and Magalhaes et al. (2011).
  • Treatments’ cost-efficacy
    • Time Frame: Through study completion (12 months)
    • The costs of each treatment procedure will be calculated and compared with thresholds values for intervention cost-effectiveness by region, determined by World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/choice/costs/CER_levels/en/).
  • Clinical caries lesion progression
    • Time Frame: Baseline, 6 and 12 months
    • Clinical examination will be performed by a blinded examiner at baseline, 6 months and 12 months after the treatment. These exams will be performed in accordance with Innes et al. (2007).
  • Impact on children’s quality of life (4-5 years old)
    • Time Frame: Baseline and 6 months
    • The oral health related to quality of life will be measured using the validated questionnaire “Early Childhood Oral Health Impact Scale” (ECOHIS) (Tesch et al., 2008) with 4-5 years old children. It will be applied immediately before the procedure and on 6 months follow-up.
  • Impact on children’s quality of life (6-9 years old)
    • Time Frame: Baseline and 6 months
    • The oral health related to quality of life will be measured using the validated questionnaire “Child Perceptions Questionnaire” (CPQ) with 6-9 years old children (Martins et al., 2009). It will be applied immediately before the procedure and on 6 months follow-up.
  • Children’s perceptions about the treatment
    • Time Frame: Baseline, 6 and 12 months
    • Children’s perceptions about the treatment performed will be evaluated using the validated questionnaire “Child’s and Parent’s Questionnaire About Teeth Appearance” (Furtado et al., 2012). This questionnaire will be applied immediately before the procedure and on 6 and 12 months follow-up.
  • Children’s satisfaction with the treatment
    • Time Frame: Baseline and 6 months
    • The patients’ satisfaction about the treatment performed will be evaluated using a scale, as performed by Mattos-Silveira et al. (2014). This scale will be applied immediately after the procedure and on 6 months follow-up.
  • Children self-reported discomfort
    • Time Frame: Baseline
    • The discomfort of each treatment will be evaluated using the facial scale of Wong-Baker (Wong, Baker, 1998). The patient will be asked to choose the face that is more similar to how she/he felt during the treatment.This answer should be given solely by the child, which means no parental or professional interferences.
  • Marginal adaptation of the stainless steel crowns
    • Time Frame: Baseline, 6 and 12 months
    • This outcome will be evaluated only with the patients randomized to the Hall Technique. The clinician will evaluate the marginal adaptation according to the criteria described by Sharaf & Farsi (2004).
  • Radiographical caries lesion progression
    • Time Frame: Baseline, 6 and 12 months
    • Radiographical examination will be performed by a blinded examiner at baseline, 6 months and 12 months after the treatment. These exams will be performed in accordance with Innes et al. (2007).
  • Biofilm retention of the stainless steel crowns
    • Time Frame: Baseline, 6 and 12 months
    • This outcome will be evaluated only with the patients randomized to the Hall Technique. The clinician will evaluate biofilm retention according to the indice proposed by Silness & Loe (1964), adopted to the primary dentition.
  • Caregivers’ perceptions about the treatment
    • Time Frame: Baseline, 6 and 12 months
    • Caregivers’ perceptions about the treatment performed will be evaluated using the validated questionnaire “Child’s and Parent’s Questionnaire About Teeth Appearance” (Furtado et al., 2012). This questionnaire will be applied immediately before the procedure and on 6 and 12 months follow-up.
  • Clinicians’ perceptions about the treatment
    • Time Frame: Baseline, 6 and 12 months
    • Clinicians’ perceptions about the treatment performed will be evaluated using the validated questionnaire “Child’s and Parent’s Questionnaire About Teeth Appearance” (Furtado et al., 2012). This questionnaire will be applied immediately before the procedure and on 6 and 12 months follow-up.
  • Caregivers’ satisfaction with the treatment
    • Time Frame: Baseline and 6 months
    • The caregivers’ satisfaction about the treatment performed will be evaluated using a scale, as performed by Mattos-Silveira et al. (2014). This scale will be applied immediately after the procedure and on 6 months follow-up.
  • Clinicians’ satisfaction with the treatment
    • Time Frame: Baseline and 6 months
    • The clinicians’ satisfaction about the treatment performed will be evaluated using a scale, as performed by Mattos-Silveira et al. (2014). This scale will be applied immediately after the procedure and on 6 months follow-up.

Participating in This Clinical Trial

Inclusion Criteria

  • children must have at least one molar with atypical caries lesion (involving more than two surfaces); – parents or legal guardians accept and sign the informed consent form. Exclusion Criteria:

  • children with special needs and/or systematic diseases with oral impairment; – teeth with spontaneous painful symptoms or necrotized and teeth presenting restorations, sealants, developmental enamel defects, pulp exposure or other signs related to endodontic treatment.

Gender Eligibility: All

Minimum Age: 4 Years

Maximum Age: 9 Years

Are Healthy Volunteers Accepted: No

Investigator Details

  • Lead Sponsor
    • Faculty Sao Leopoldo Mandic Campinas
  • Provider of Information About this Clinical Study
    • Principal Investigator: Jose Carlos P Imparato, PhD, Senior Lecturer – Faculty Sao Leopoldo Mandic Campinas
  • Overall Official(s)
    • Jose Carlos P Imparato, Professor, Principal Investigator, Faculty Sao Leopoldo Mandic

References

Casagrande L, Dalpian DM, Ardenghi TM, Zanatta FB, Balbinot CE, Garcia-Godoy F, De Araujo FB. Randomized clinical trial of adhesive restorations in primary molars. 18-month results. Am J Dent. 2013 Dec;26(6):351-5.

Evans D, Innes N. The Hall Technique: A minimal intervention, child centred approach to managing the carious primary molar. A Users Manual. University of Dundee, 3. ed., 2010.

Innes NP, Ricketts D, Chong LY, Keightley AJ, Lamont T, Santamaria RM. Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Dec 31;2015(12):CD005512. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005512.pub3.

van der Zee V, van Amerongen WE. Short communication: Influence of preformed metal crowns (Hall technique) on the occlusal vertical dimension in the primary dentition. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2010 Oct;11(5):225-7. doi: 10.1007/BF03262751.

Miraglia SS, Freitas KB, Pinto JHN. Comparative analyze of the mesion-distal (MD) and gengivo-incisal (GI) distances of the upper central incisors with the instrument Trubyte Tooth Indicator. PGRO – Pós-Grad Rev Odontol 5(2):13-17, 2002.

Magalhaes JB, Zavanelli AC, Zavanelli RA. Analysis of facial proportion and its relation with dental form, rest and occlusal vertical dimension between institutionalized students. Rev Odontol UNESP 40(5): 215-221, 2011.

Tesch FC, Oliveira BH, Leao A. [Semantic equivalence of the Brazilian version of the Early Childhood Oral Health Impact Scale]. Cad Saude Publica. 2008 Aug;24(8):1897-909. doi: 10.1590/s0102-311×2008000800018. Portuguese.

Martins MT, Ferreira FM, Oliveira AC, Paiva SM, Vale MP, Allison PJ, Pordeus IA. Preliminary validation of the Brazilian version of the Child Perceptions Questionnaire 8-10. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2009 Sep;10(3):135-40.

Furtado GE, Sousa ML, Barbosa TS, Wada RS, Martinez-Mier EA, Almeida ME. [Perceptions of dental fluorosis and evaluation of agreement between parents and children: validation of a questionnaire]. Cad Saude Publica. 2012 Aug;28(8):1493-505. doi: 10.1590/s0102-311×2012000800008. Portuguese.

Mattos-Silveira J, Floriano I, Ferreira FR, Vigano ME, Frizzo MA, Reyes A, Novaes TF, Moriyama CM, Raggio DP, Imparato JC, Mendes FM, Braga MM. New proposal of silver diamine fluoride use in arresting approximal caries: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2014 Nov 19;15:448. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-448.

Wong DL, Baker CM. Pain in children: comparison of assessment scales. Pediatr Nurs. 1988 Jan-Feb;14(1):9-17. No abstract available.

Sharaf AA, Farsi NM. A clinical and radiographic evaluation of stainless steel crowns for primary molars. J Dent. 2004 Jan;32(1):27-33. doi: 10.1016/s0300-5712(03)00136-2.

SILNESS J, LOE H. PERIODONTAL DISEASE IN PREGNANCY. II. CORRELATION BETWEEN ORAL HYGIENE AND PERIODONTAL CONDTION. Acta Odontol Scand. 1964 Feb;22:121-35. doi: 10.3109/00016356408993968. No abstract available.

Clinical trials entries are delivered from the US National Institutes of Health and are not reviewed separately by this site. Please see the identifier information above for retrieving further details from the government database.

At TrialBulletin.com, we keep tabs on over 200,000 clinical trials in the US and abroad, using medical data supplied directly by the US National Institutes of Health. Please see the About and Contact page for details.