Success Rate of Single Versus Two Visit Regenerative Treatment Protocol in Non Vital Mature Anterior Teeth


This study evaluates success rate of non vital mature anterior teeth with periapical lesion treated by regenerative endodontic protocol in single visit versus two visit technique.

Patients are randomized into two groups where treatment will be done either in one visit including access, disinfection, placing platelet rich plasma as scaffold and restoration or two visit protocol involving access, disinfection and placing calcium hydroxide as intracanal medicament in first visit followed by a second visit after 3 weeks involving reopening of the tooth, removing intracanal medicament and placing platelet rich plasma as scaffold then restoration. Success rate is defined as absence of subjective signs and symptoms along with healing of periapical lesion

Full Title of Study: “Evaluation of Success Rate of Non Vital Mature Anterior Teeth With Periapical Lesion Following Single Versus Two Visit Regenerative Treatment Protocol A Randomized Clinical Study”

Study Type

  • Study Type: Interventional
  • Study Design
    • Allocation: Randomized
    • Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
    • Primary Purpose: Treatment
    • Masking: Single (Outcomes Assessor)
  • Study Primary Completion Date: September 1, 2020

Detailed Description

Title: Evaluation of Success Rate of Non Vital Mature Anterior Teeth with Periapical Lesion Following Single versus Two Visit Regenerative Treatment Protocol (A Randomized Clinical Trial) Regenerative endodontics can be defined as biologically based procedures designed to replace damaged structures, including dentin and root structures, as well as cells of the pulp-dentin complex.

The majority of endodontic patients are adults, thus the application of the tissue engineering concept to mature teeth could provide a biological treatment modality instead of the conventional one. In fact, several advantages were reported about regenerative procedures in well developed mature teeth. Reconstitution of the neurovascular system in root canals by pulp regeneration will provide pulp tissues with an immune system, which will function as the first line of defense against microbial challenge. Moreover, restoration of pulp dentine complex will protect the tooth during loading and mastication.

Different treatment protocols for pulp regeneration were reported in the literature regarding irrigation (type, concentration and time), intracanal medication, pulpal space barrier, incorporation and lack of scaffolds (blood clot, PRP,PRF, collagen) as well as recall visits.

Rationale for conducting the research and choice of comparators:

Multiple visits protocol has been the commonly used technique in regenerative endodontic procedures. It involves the placement of intracanal medicaments between visits (calcium hydroxide and triple antibiotic paste) which have many drawbacks such as difficulty in removal, tooth discoloration, weakening of the root and tooth loss.

Completing revascularization in one visit has many advantages. First, it reduces the chance of additional bacterial contamination of the space. Second, a single revascularization protocol may overcome the problem of poor patient compliance and reduce the number of appointments needed. Third, it can help to combat potential injury of the tooth and tooth discoloration Unfortunately, up till the moment it is not clear which protocol is the most effective. Thus randomized clinical trials are required to provide plausible answers to this question In the present research the recent single visit regenerative treatment for necrotic mature teeth will be compared to the conventionally used two visit one


  • Procedure: Single visit pulp regeneration
    • Access cavity, disinfection, preparing and injecting platelet rich plasma, and restoring the tooth all done in one visit.
  • Procedure: Two visit pulp regeneration
    • first visit : access, disinfection and placing calcium hydroxide as intracanal medicament second visit: re opening of tooth, preparing and injecting platelet rich plasma and restoring the tooth.

Arms, Groups and Cohorts

  • Experimental: Single visit pulp regeneration
    • Regenerative endodontic procedure not involving placement of intracanal medicament will be done in single visit
  • Active Comparator: Two visit pulp regeneration
    • Regenerative endodontic procedure involving placing intracanal medicament will be done in two visit

Clinical Trial Outcome Measures

Primary Measures

  • Change in Post operative pain: NRS
    • Time Frame: 3, 6, 9 and 12 months
    • absence of pain reported by the patient by numerical rate scale, the 11-point numeric scale ranges from ’0′ representing one pain extreme (e.g. “no pain”) to ’10′ representing the other pain extreme (e.g. “pain as bad as you can imagine” or “worst pain imaginable”)
  • Change in swelling and/or sinus
    • Time Frame: 3,6,9,12 months
    • The presence of swelling or sinus will be reported by a binary question yes/no
  • Periapical healing
    • Time Frame: 12 months
    • The existing periapical lesion will be measured by mm by CBCT before intiation of treatment and after one year

Secondary Measures

  • Antimicrobial effect
    • Time Frame: before and after complete disinfection either in the same visit or after 3 weeks from the second visit
    • intracanal bacterial count by culture method
  • Sensitivity
    • Time Frame: 3, 6, 9 and 12 months
    • Tooth giving respond to electrical pulp tester
  • Discoloration
    • Time Frame: 3, 6, 9 and 12 months
    • Recording tooth shade before and after treatment

Participating in This Clinical Trial

Inclusion Criteria

  • Single canal anterior tooth
  • Mature root
  • Non vital with radiographic evidence of periapical lesion
  • Periapical lesion of average size 2-5mm
  • Positive patient compliance for participation in the study.
  • Patients with good oral hygiene
  • Normal periodontal probing depth ≤ 3 mm

Exclusion Criteria

  • Compromised remaining tooth structure that need post and core build up
  • Non restorable teeth
  • Vital teeth
  • Radiographic evidence of external or internal root resorption.
  • Roots showing fracture or ankylosis
  • Medically compromised patients
  • Pregnant women
  • Greater than grade I mobility or periodontal probing depth greater than 3mm
  • Immature tooth
  • Patients with pain, swelling or fistula tracts

Gender Eligibility: All

Minimum Age: 15 Years

Maximum Age: 35 Years

Are Healthy Volunteers Accepted: Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Investigator Details

  • Lead Sponsor
    • Cairo University
  • Provider of Information About this Clinical Study
    • Principal Investigator: lamiaa Mohamed Ragaei Lasheen, Assistant lecturer of endodontics – Cairo University

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, 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.