The aim of the present study is to evaluate both Hall technique and atraumatic restorative technique in comparison to the conventional restorative technique in the management of carious lesions in primary molars.
This study is a three arm randomized controlled clinical trial. Eligible children will be selected from the outpatient clinic of Pediatric Dentistry and Public Health Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University after securing necessary consents. One hundred and fifty five teeth will be randomly allocated into 3 groups fifty two each. Group I will be assigned to Hall technique Group II will be assigned to atraumatic restorative treatment using Glass ionomer cement, and Group III will be assigned to a conventional stainless steel crown and will serve as a control.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE
Enrollment
155
* Orthodontic separators will be used to create space for fitting the stainless crown, then removed after 3-5 days * Occlusion will be measured assessing the patient's occlusal-vertical dimensions (OVD) using a modified version of van der Zee and van Amerongen method with a millimeter probe measuring the distance from the lowest point of the gingiva, around the lower canine on the vestibular side up to the point where the tip of the upper canine ends in order to assess the degree of overbite after mounting of the crown. * The correct crown size will be selected. The crown should cover all the cusps and approaches the contact points, with a slight feeling of "spring back." till reaching the gingival margin. Cementation will be done using glass ionomer cement
Caries removal using excavators, then restoration using glass ionomer (GIC)
Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University
Alexandria, Egypt
Success of the crown (for Hall and conventional techniques)
The presence of a satisfactory crown will be checked. Loss of the crown, perforated crown or restoration fracture are considered failures.
Time frame: 1 week
Success of the crown (for Hall and conventional techniques)
The presence of a satisfactory crown will be checked. Loss of the crown, perforated crown or restoration fracture are considered failures.
Time frame: 1 month
Success of the crown (for Hall and conventional techniques)
The presence of a satisfactory crown will be checked. Loss of the crown, perforated crown or restoration fracture are considered failures.
Time frame: 6 months
Success of the crown (for Hall and conventional techniques)
The presence of a satisfactory crown will be checked. Loss of the crown, perforated crown or restoration fracture are considered failures.
Time frame: 12 months
Success of the atraumatic restorative technique
Scoring of the restoration between 0-9. 0: Present, satisfactory. 1: Present, slight deficiency at cavity margin of less than 0.5 mm. 2: Present, slight deficiency at cavity margin of 0.5 mm or more. 3: Present, fracture in restoration. 4: Present, fracture in tooth. 5: Present, overextension of approximal margin of 0.5 mm or more. 6: Not present, most or all of restoration missing. 7: Not present, other restorative treatment performed. 8: Not present, tooth is not present. 9: Unable to diagnose. Success scores are 0 and 1, while failure scores are 2-8.
Time frame: 1 week
Success of the atraumatic restorative technique
Scoring of the restoration between 0-9. 0: Present, satisfactory. 1: Present, slight deficiency at cavity margin of less than 0.5 mm. 2: Present, slight deficiency at cavity margin of 0.5 mm or more. 3: Present, fracture in restoration. 4: Present, fracture in tooth. 5: Present, overextension of approximal margin of 0.5 mm or more. 6: Not present, most or all of restoration missing. 7: Not present, other restorative treatment performed. 8: Not present, tooth is not present. 9: Unable to diagnose. Success scores are 0 and 1, while failure scores are 2-8.
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Complete caries removal using high-speed hand piece, and an excavator to clear carious dentin from the pulpal wall. Then, stainless steel crown preparation, selection of the proper size with the smallest crown size that completely covers the preparation chosen. The correct occlusogingival crown length will be established. Cementation will be done using glass ionomer cement
Time frame: 1 month
Success of the atraumatic restorative technique
Scoring of the restoration between 0-9. 0: Present, satisfactory. 1: Present, slight deficiency at cavity margin of less than 0.5 mm. 2: Present, slight deficiency at cavity margin of 0.5 mm or more. 3: Present, fracture in restoration. 4: Present, fracture in tooth. 5: Present, overextension of approximal margin of 0.5 mm or more. 6: Not present, most or all of restoration missing. 7: Not present, other restorative treatment performed. 8: Not present, tooth is not present. 9: Unable to diagnose. Success scores are 0 and 1, while failure scores are 2-8.
Time frame: 6 months
Success of the atraumatic restorative technique
Scoring of the restoration between 0-9. 0: Present, satisfactory. 1: Present, slight deficiency at cavity margin of less than 0.5 mm. 2: Present, slight deficiency at cavity margin of 0.5 mm or more. 3: Present, fracture in restoration. 4: Present, fracture in tooth. 5: Present, overextension of approximal margin of 0.5 mm or more. 6: Not present, most or all of restoration missing. 7: Not present, other restorative treatment performed. 8: Not present, tooth is not present. 9: Unable to diagnose. Success scores are 0 and 1, while failure scores are 2-8.
Time frame: 12 months
Treatment (restoration) survival
ART restorations, Hall technique and conventional restorations will be scored as satisfactory will be considered "successful," while those presented minor and/or major failures will be considered as "failed."
Time frame: 1 week
Treatment (restoration) survival
ART restorations, Hall technique and conventional restorations will be scored as satisfactory will be considered "successful," while those presented minor and/or major failures will be considered as "failed."
Time frame: 1 month
Treatment (restoration) survival
ART restorations, Hall technique and conventional restorations will be scored as satisfactory will be considered "successful," while those presented minor and/or major failures will be considered as "failed."
Time frame: 6 months
Treatment (restoration) survival
ART restorations, Hall technique and conventional restorations will be scored as satisfactory will be considered "successful," while those presented minor and/or major failures will be considered as "failed."
Time frame: 12 months
Radiographic evaluation of the treatment
Digital postoperative periapical radiographs will be obtained using a paralleling device to allow for exact and reproducible alignment of the dental film and the X-ray tube at the different follow up intervals. Teeth will be considered radiographically successful if they showed no evidence of radicular radiolucency, internal or external root resorption or periodontal ligament space widening
Time frame: 6 months
Radiographic evaluation of the treatment
Digital postoperative periapical radiographs will be obtained using a paralleling device to allow for exact and reproducible alignment of the dental film and the X-ray tube at the different follow up intervals. Teeth will be considered radiographically successful if they showed no evidence of radicular radiolucency, internal or external root resorption or periodontal ligament space widening
Time frame: 12 months
Child satisfaction
The patient's perception of the treatment was assessed by using a faces scale modified to represent satisfaction, indifference, or dissatisfaction . A few minutes will be spent before each procedure to establish rapport with the child and to obtain some notion of the child's understanding of the meaning of those schematic facial expressions. After treatment, the child will be instructed to choose the face that best represented how he/she felt during the procedure.
Time frame: immediately after completion of the dental treatment procedures
Assessment of oral cleanliness (plaque)
using plaque index of Sillness and Loe. 0: No plaque. 1: A film of plaque adhering to the free gingival margin and adjacent area of the tooth. The plaque may be seen in situ only after application of disclosing solution or by using the probe on the tooth surface. 2: Moderate accumulation of soft deposits within the gingival pocket, or the tooth and gingival margin which can be seen by the naked eye. 3: Abundance of soft matter within the gingival pocket and/or on the tooth and gingival margin.
Time frame: 1 week
Assessment of oral cleanliness (plaque)
using plaque index of Sillness and Loe. 0: No plaque. 1: A film of plaque adhering to the free gingival margin and adjacent area of the tooth. The plaque may be seen in situ only after application of disclosing solution or by using the probe on the tooth surface. 2: Moderate accumulation of soft deposits within the gingival pocket, or the tooth and gingival margin which can be seen by the naked eye. 3: Abundance of soft matter within the gingival pocket and/or on the tooth and gingival margin.
Time frame: 1 month
Assessment of oral cleanliness (plaque)
using plaque index of Sillness and Loe. 0: No plaque. 1: A film of plaque adhering to the free gingival margin and adjacent area of the tooth. The plaque may be seen in situ only after application of disclosing solution or by using the probe on the tooth surface. 2: Moderate accumulation of soft deposits within the gingival pocket, or the tooth and gingival margin which can be seen by the naked eye. 3: Abundance of soft matter within the gingival pocket and/or on the tooth and gingival margin.
Time frame: 6 months
Assessment of oral cleanliness (plaque)
using plaque index of Sillness and Loe. 0: No plaque. 1: A film of plaque adhering to the free gingival margin and adjacent area of the tooth. The plaque may be seen in situ only after application of disclosing solution or by using the probe on the tooth surface. 2: Moderate accumulation of soft deposits within the gingival pocket, or the tooth and gingival margin which can be seen by the naked eye. 3: Abundance of soft matter within the gingival pocket and/or on the tooth and gingival margin.
Time frame: 12 months
Assessment of the gingival condition
using gingival index of Loe and Sillness. 0: Normal gingival. 1: Mild inflammation; slight change in color and slight edema, no bleeding on probing. 2: Moderate inflammation; redness, edema, glazing and bleeding on probing. 3: Severe inflammation; marked redness, edema, ulcerations and tendency towards spontaneous bleeding.
Time frame: 1 week
Assessment of the gingival condition
using gingival index of Loe and Sillness. 0: Normal gingival. 1: Mild inflammation; slight change in color and slight edema, no bleeding on probing. 2: Moderate inflammation; redness, edema, glazing and bleeding on probing. 3: Severe inflammation; marked redness, edema, ulcerations and tendency towards spontaneous bleeding.
Time frame: 1 month
Assessment of the gingival condition
using gingival index of Loe and Sillness. 0: Normal gingival. 1: Mild inflammation; slight change in color and slight edema, no bleeding on probing. 2: Moderate inflammation; redness, edema, glazing and bleeding on probing. 3: Severe inflammation; marked redness, edema, ulcerations and tendency towards spontaneous bleeding.
Time frame: 6 months
Assessment of the gingival condition
using gingival index of Loe and Sillness. 0: Normal gingival. 1: Mild inflammation; slight change in color and slight edema, no bleeding on probing. 2: Moderate inflammation; redness, edema, glazing and bleeding on probing. 3: Severe inflammation; marked redness, edema, ulcerations and tendency towards spontaneous bleeding.
Time frame: 12 months