Comparison Between Amalgam Restoration and Hall Technique in Treatment of Carious Primary Molars
试验速览
- 阶段
- 不适用
- 状态
- 已完成
- 入组人数
- 33
- 试验地点
- 2
- 主要终点
- Restoration efficiency
研究概览
简要总结
compare between amalgam restoration and hall technique for treatment of decayed primary molars and intervention treatment for decayed primary molars in children, age 3-5 years using split mouth technique in the same child, conventional amalgam restoration and use Stainless steel crown in other side
详细描述
This study wiII be conducted on 30 chiIdren: The moIars wiII be treated by spIit mouth technique.
(AmaIgam group): 30 carious moIars, wiII be restored with (amaIgam) code 4 or 5 (16).
( StainIess steeI crowns group): 30 carious moIars wiII be restored with ((HaII Tech).
- CIinicaI Assessment:
During follow up periods if:
研究设计
- 研究类型
- Interventional
- 分配方式
- Randomized
- 干预模型
- Parallel
- 主要目的
- Treatment
- 盲法
- None
盲法说明
Compare between Amalgam and Hall technique in restoration decyaed primary molars by split mouth technique..
acceptability of Hall technique for care givers and children..
入排标准
- 年龄范围
- 3 Years 至 5 Years（Child）
- 性别
- All
- 接受健康志愿者
- 否
入选标准
- •Apparently healthy children aged from 3-5 years old of both sexes.
- •cooperative children scored (3 or 4) according to Frankle behavior scale.
- •Informed consent were obtained from parents or care givers.
- •Children had bilateral carious primary molars were scored code 4 or code 5 according to (I.C.D.A.S.C) international caries restorable and evaluation method (split mouth tech).
排除标准
- •Clinical history of spontaneous pain, intra-oral or facial swelling or presence of fistula or sinus tract.
- •Radiographic findings of root resorption, pulp stone, furcation involvement or periapical pathosis as revealed by preoperative periapical radiography.
- •Patients who have any history of hypersensitivity to any of the materials to be used.
- •Parents/children who are uncooperative or refused to participate in the study.
结局指标
主要结局
Restoration efficiency
时间窗: 3 months
Restoration efficiency; Grase \& SmaIis MobiIity Index Grade 0: 0.25 (physioIogic tooth mobiIity). Grade 1: 1 mm (HorizontaI mobiIity). Grade 2: 2 mm (HorizontaI mobiIity). Grade 3: 2 mm (HorizontaI and verticaI mobiIity).
Swelling
时间窗: 12 months
Swelling scores
Pain score
时间窗: 12 months
Pain scores were evaluated VAS pain 10-score scale
Tooth mobility evaluation
时间窗: 12 months
Tooth mobility evaluation; Tooth mobiIity wiII be graded cIinicaIIy by Grace \& SmaIes mobiIity index.
Gingival index
时间窗: 12 months
The GI uses the following scoring system: 0 = normal gingiva; 1. = mild inflammation: slight change in color, slight edema, no bleeding on probing; 2. = moderate inflammation: redness, edema, and glazing, or bleeding on probing; 3. = severe inflammation: marked redness and edema, tendency toward spontaneous bleeding, ulceration.
Radiographic examination
时间窗: 12 months
The radiographs will taken using the Parallel Periapical Technique, will be taken immediately on the first visit post operatively, to act as base line for radiographic evaluation. The following criteria of radiographic assessment will include: 1. ExternaI or internaI root resorption. 2. Inter-radicuIar bone resorption. 3. Widening of the periodontaI Iigament space. 4. PeriapicaI radioIucency. The chiIdren will be recaIIed at the foIIowe up periods at , 3, 6, 9 and12 months to evaIuate periapical radiograoh.
次要结局
未报告次要终点