Dental Enamel HypoplasiaNCT05299489
Evaluation Direct and Indirect Composite Restoration in Hypomineralization Molars.
A study testing Direct restoration and Indirect restoration in people with Dental Enamel Hypoplasia and Dental Caries, run by Damascus University at 1 site in Syria.
Trial summary
The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of direct and Indirect Composite Restoration in Children With Molar Incisor Hypomineralization Patients (MIH) and following up after 3 , 6 , 12 months (Clinically): Group A ( Control group ): Hypomineralization molars were restored by direct composite. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 8 to 12 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Dental Enamel Hypoplasia, Dental Caries
- What is being tested?
- Direct restoration and Indirect restoration
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 20 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSyria
- Study dates
- 15 Oct 2020to 15 Feb 2022
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 8 to 12 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child
Who may be able to join
- Age between 8 and 12 years.
- Definitely positive or positive ratings of Frank scale.
- The first permanent molars must achieve the following criteria: The molar must be suffering from severe demineralization and it must be restorable with composite.
- caries lesions include the occlusal surface and should not extend more than thirds of the thickness of dentin
- Absence clinical and radiographic signs which indicate pulp necrosis
Who cannot join
- Systematic or mental disorders.
- Definitely negative or negative ratings of Frankel scale
- Existence periapical translucence
- Existence external or internal abnormal absorption
- Existence swelling or fistula
- Sensitivity to percussion
- Existence of spontaneous or stimulant pain
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Clinical Randomized Controlled Trial To Compare Direct and Indirect Composite Restoration in Children With Molar Incisor Hypomineralization Patients (MIH)
The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of direct and Indirect Composite Restoration in Children With Molar Incisor Hypomineralization Patients (MIH) and following up after 3 , 6 , 12 months (Clinically):
Group A ( Control group ): Hypomineralization molars were restored by direct composite.
Group B ( Experimental group ): Hypomineralization molars were restored by indirect composite.
Read the detailed description
Pediatric dentists face a high prevalence of MIH ranging from 3 to 40%, so it is relatively common condition that would cause treatment challenges due to severe sensitivity, breakdown of the occlusal surface, difficulty anesthesia and relatively high failure of restorations as a result of marginal breakdown of restorations.
There are many treatment options available to restore these teeth. In mild and moderate cases, they are restored using direct composite resin. In cases where teeth are severely affected, the treatment is more complicated, including stainless steel crowns and different types of full or partial indirect crowns.
Direct composite resin restorations are the treatment option in the majority of clinical cases, but in severe cases, the results of treatment are often unsatisfactory.
Indirect composite restorations are an aesthetic alternative to cast metal inlays and stainless steel crowns with minimal microleakage.
- Conditions
- Dental Enamel Hypoplasia, Dental Caries
- Being tested
- Direct restoration, Indirect restoration
- Keywords
- MIH, Direct composite, Indirect composite, Permanent molars
- Medical subject headings
- Dental Enamel Hypoplasia, Dental Caries
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Direct restorationOther
Local anesthesia was achieved and the tooth were isolated using a rubber dam. Then, the entire caries and hypomineralized enamel were removed using diamond burs and removal the affected dentine caries by slow speed handpiece, the final preparation must be on intact enamel. The molars were wiped using 5.25% sodium hypochlorite followed by rinsing with water, etching using 37% phosphoric acid The surface of the restoration, bonding, applying composite and assessment of occlusion.
Indirect restorationOther
Local anesthesia was achieved and the tooth were isolated using a rubber dam. Then, the entire caries and hypomineralized enamel were removed using diamond burs and removal the affected dentine caries by slow speed handpiece, the final preparation must be on intact enamel. Preparation walls were vertical according to the longitudinal axis of the tooth and the occlusal depth 2 mm. The impressions were taken for both jaws and the bite were recorded for the using red wax. The cavity in example were painted with insulating material. Indirect composite resin were applied, finishined and polished.
Cementation:
Tooth surface: The molars were wiped using 5.25% sodium hypochlorite followed by rinsing with water, etching using 37% phosphoric acid The surface of the restoration: application of silane coupling agent to enhance the formation of resin tags.
Dual cure resin cement was used for final cementation followed by an assessment of occlusion.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Direct composite in hypomineraliztion molars. | Experimental | Not described Receives: Other: Direct restoration |
| Indirect composite in hypomineraliztion molars. | Other | Not described Receives: Other: Indirect restoration |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Clinical evaluation of teeth restored by direct composite.
Clinical evaluation of restored tooth was assessed according to USPHS criteria (Alpha, Bravo, Charlie) as following:
Marginal Adaptation: (No crevice), (Crevice), (Fractured, missing). Marginal Discoloration: (no discoloration), (discoloration but has not penetrated along the margin), (discoloration has present along the). Secondary caries: (No evidence of caries), (Evidence of caries). Color Matching: (100% color match), (Slight mismatched), (Total mismatched). Anatomic Form: (anatomic form), (teeth partially degraded but clinically acceptable), (partially degraded but need to be replaced). Postoperative Sensitivity: (no Postoperative sensitivity), (slight sensitivity), (sever sensitivity).Retention: (no loss) (fracture or loss). Surface Texture: (no defect), (minimal defect), (severed defect).
Measured: 3 months after applying the restoration
Clinical evaluation of teeth restored by direct composite.
Clinical evaluation of restored tooth was assessed according to USPHS criteria (Alpha, Bravo, Charlie) as following:
Marginal Adaptation: (No crevice), (Crevice), (Fractured, missing). Marginal Discoloration: (no discoloration), (discoloration but has not penetrated along the margin), (discoloration has present along the). Secondary caries: (No evidence of caries), (Evidence of caries). Color Matching: (100% color match), (Slight mismatched), (Total mismatched). Anatomic Form: (anatomic form), (teeth partially degraded but clinically acceptable), (partially degraded but need to be replaced). Postoperative Sensitivity: (no Postoperative sensitivity), (slight sensitivity), (sever sensitivity).Retention: (no loss) (fracture or loss). Surface Texture: (no defect), (minimal defect), (severed defect).
Measured: 6 months after applying the restoration
Clinical evaluation of teeth restored by direct composite.
Clinical evaluation of restored tooth was assessed according to USPHS criteria (Alpha, Bravo, Charlie) as following:
Marginal Adaptation: (No crevice), (Crevice), (Fractured, missing). Marginal Discoloration: (no discoloration), (discoloration but has not penetrated along the margin), (discoloration has present along the). Secondary caries: (No evidence of caries), (Evidence of caries). Color Matching: (100% color match), (Slight mismatched), (Total mismatched). Anatomic Form: (anatomic form), (teeth partially degraded but clinically acceptable), (partially degraded but need to be replaced). Postoperative Sensitivity: (no Postoperative sensitivity), (slight sensitivity), (sever sensitivity).Retention: (no loss) (fracture or loss). Surface Texture: (no defect), (minimal defect), (severed defect).
Measured: 12 months after applying the restoration
Clinical evaluation of teeth restored by indirect composite.
Clinical evaluation of restored tooth was assessed according to USPHS criteria (Alpha, Bravo, Charlie) as following:
Marginal Adaptation: (No crevice), (Crevice), (Fractured, missing). Marginal Discoloration: (no discoloration), (discoloration but has not penetrated along the margin), (discoloration has present along the). Secondary caries: (No evidence of caries), (Evidence of caries). Color Matching: (100% color match), (Slight mismatched), (Total mismatched). Anatomic Form: (anatomic form), (teeth partially degraded but clinically acceptable), (partially degraded but need to be replaced). Postoperative Sensitivity: (no Postoperative sensitivity), (slight sensitivity), (sever sensitivity).Retention: (no loss) (fracture or loss). Surface Texture: (no defect), (minimal defect), (severed defect).
Measured: 3 months after applying the restoration
Clinical evaluation of teeth restored by indirect composite.
Clinical evaluation of restored tooth was assessed according to USPHS criteria (Alpha, Bravo, Charlie) as following:
Marginal Adaptation: (No crevice), (Crevice), (Fractured, missing). Marginal Discoloration: (no discoloration), (discoloration but has not penetrated along the margin), (discoloration has present along the). Secondary caries: (No evidence of caries), (Evidence of caries). Color Matching: (100% color match), (Slight mismatched), (Total mismatched). Anatomic Form: (anatomic form), (teeth partially degraded but clinically acceptable), (partially degraded but need to be replaced). Postoperative Sensitivity: (no Postoperative sensitivity), (slight sensitivity), (sever sensitivity).Retention: (no loss) (fracture or loss). Surface Texture: (no defect), (minimal defect), (severed defect).
Measured: 6 months after applying the restoration
Clinical evaluation of teeth restored by indirect composite.
Clinical evaluation of restored tooth was assessed according to USPHS criteria (Alpha, Bravo, Charlie) as following:
Marginal Adaptation: (No crevice), (Crevice), (Fractured, missing). Marginal Discoloration: (no discoloration), (discoloration but has not penetrated along the margin), (discoloration has present along the). Secondary caries: (No evidence of caries), (Evidence of caries). Color Matching: (100% color match), (Slight mismatched), (Total mismatched). Anatomic Form: (anatomic form), (teeth partially degraded but clinically acceptable), (partially degraded but need to be replaced). Postoperative Sensitivity: (no Postoperative sensitivity), (slight sensitivity), (sever sensitivity).Retention: (no loss) (fracture or loss). Surface Texture: (no defect), (minimal defect), (severed defect).
Measured: 12 months after applying the restoration
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted29 Mar 2022
- Study start15 Oct 2020
- Primary completion25 Dec 2021
- Study completion15 Feb 2022
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (6)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Dental Enamel HypoplasiaStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Model description
- Split mouth design
- Masking
- Triple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Care provider, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Damascus University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Abdulrhman S Hakmi, Principal investigator, MSc student in Pedodontics, University of DamascusMayssoon Dashash, Phd, Study director, Professor of Pedodontics, Department of Pedodontics, University of Damascus
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05299489
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- UDDS-Pedo-10-2022
- Status last verified
- Mar 2022
- First submitted
- 4 Mar 2022
- Last updated
- 29 Mar 2022
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Weerheijm KL. Molar incisor hypomineralization (MIH): clinical presentation, aetiology and management. Dent Update. 2004 Jan-Feb;31(1):9-12. doi: 10.12968/denu.2004.31.1.9.
PubMed 15000003Silva MJ, Scurrah KJ, Craig JM, Manton DJ, Kilpatrick N. Etiology of molar incisor hypomineralization - A systematic review. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2016 Aug;44(4):342-53. doi: 10.1111/cdoe.12229. Epub 2016 Apr 28.
PubMed 27121068Melin L, Lundgren J, Malmberg P, Noren JG, Taube F, Cornell DH. XRMA and ToF-SIMS Analysis of Normal and Hypomineralized Enamel. Microsc Microanal. 2015 Apr;21(2):407-21. doi: 10.1017/S1431927615000033. Epub 2015 Feb 12.
PubMed 25674916Lygidakis NA, Wong F, Jalevik B, Vierrou AM, Alaluusua S, Espelid I. Best Clinical Practice Guidance for clinicians dealing with children presenting with Molar-Incisor-Hypomineralisation (MIH): An EAPD Policy Document. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2010 Apr;11(2):75-81. doi: 10.1007/BF03262716.
PubMed 20403301Dhareula A, Goyal A, Gauba K, Bhatia SK, Kapur A, Bhandari S. A clinical and radiographic investigation comparing the efficacy of cast metal and indirect resin onlays in rehabilitation of permanent first molars affected with severe molar incisor hypomineralisation (MIH): a 36-month randomised controlled clinical trial. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2019 Oct;20(5):489-500. doi: 10.1007/s40368-019-00430-y. Epub 2019 Mar 19.
PubMed 30888581Gaton-Hernandez P, Serrano CR, da Silva LAB, de Castaneda ER, da Silva RAB, Pucinelli CM, Manton D, Ustrell-Torrent JM, Nelson-Filho P. Minimally interventive restorative care of teeth with molar incisor hypomineralization and open apex-A 24-month longitudinal study. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2020 Jan;30(1):4-10. doi: 10.1111/ipd.12581. Epub 2019 Oct 24.
PubMed 31593607
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 29 Mar 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Clinical Randomized Controlled Trial To Compare Direct and Indirect Composite Restoration in Children With Molar Incisor Hypomineralization Patients (MIH)
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05299489
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- UDDS-Pedo-10-2022
- Conditions
- Dental Enamel Hypoplasia, Dental Caries
- Keywords
- MIH, Direct composite, Indirect composite, Permanent molars
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Damascus UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 15 Oct 2020 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 25 Dec 2021 (actual)
- Study completion
- 15 Feb 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 29 Mar 2022 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of direct and Indirect Composite Restoration in Children With Molar Incisor Hypomineralization Patients (MIH) and following up after 3 , 6 , 12 months (Clinically):
Group A ( Control group ): Hypomineralization molars were restored by direct composite.
Group B ( Experimental group ): Hypomineralization molars were restored by indirect composite.
Detailed description
Pediatric dentists face a high prevalence of MIH ranging from 3 to 40%, so it is relatively common condition that would cause treatment challenges due to severe sensitivity, breakdown of the occlusal surface, difficulty anesthesia and relatively high failure of restorations as a result of marginal breakdown of restorations.
There are many treatment options available to restore these teeth. In mild and moderate cases, they are restored using direct composite resin. In cases where teeth are severely affected, the treatment is more complicated, including stainless steel crowns and different types of full or partial indirect crowns.
Direct composite resin restorations are the treatment option in the majority of clinical cases, but in severe cases, the results of treatment are often unsatisfactory.
Indirect composite restorations are an aesthetic alternative to cast metal inlays and stainless steel crowns with minimal microleakage.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Triple blind (participant, care provider, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Split mouth design
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Direct composite in hypomineraliztion molars. | Experimental | Other: Direct restoration |
| Indirect composite in hypomineraliztion molars. | Other | Other: Indirect restoration |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 8 to 12 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Age between 8 and 12 years.
- Definitely positive or positive ratings of Frank scale.
- The first permanent molars must achieve the following criteria: The molar must be suffering from severe demineralization and it must be restorable with composite.
- caries lesions include the occlusal surface and should not extend more than thirds of the thickness of dentin
- Absence clinical and radiographic signs which indicate pulp necrosis
Key exclusion criteria (7 listed)
- Systematic or mental disorders.
- Definitely negative or negative ratings of Frankel scale
- Existence periapical translucence
- Existence external or internal abnormal absorption
- Existence swelling or fistula
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Direct restorationLocal anesthesia was achieved and the tooth were isolated using a rubber dam. Then, the entire caries and hypomineralized enamel were removed using diamond burs and removal the affected dentine caries by slow speed handpiece, the final preparation must be on intact enamel. The molars were wiped using 5.25% sodium hypochlorite followed by rinsing with water, etching using 37% phosphoric acid The surface of the restoration, bonding, applying composite and assessment of occlusion. | Other | Direct composite in hypomineraliztion molars. |
| Indirect restorationLocal anesthesia was achieved and the tooth were isolated using a rubber dam. Then, the entire caries and hypomineralized enamel were removed using diamond burs and removal the affected dentine caries by slow speed handpiece, the final preparation must be on intact enamel. Preparation walls were vertical according to the longitudinal axis of the tooth and the occlusal depth 2 mm. The impressions were taken for both jaws and the bite were recorded for the using red wax. The cavity in example were painted with insulating material. Indirect composite resin were applied, finishined and polished. Cementation: Tooth surface: The molars were wiped using 5.25% sodium hypochlorite followed by rinsing with water, etching using 37% phosphoric acid The surface of the restoration: application of silane coupling agent to enhance the formation of resin tags. Dual cure resin cement was used for final cementation followed by an assessment of occlusion. | Other | Indirect composite in hypomineraliztion molars. |
Primary outcome
Clinical evaluation of teeth restored by direct composite.
Time frame: 3 months after applying the restoration
Clinical evaluation of restored tooth was assessed according to USPHS criteria (Alpha, Bravo, Charlie) as following: Marginal Adaptation: (No crevice), (Crevice), (Fractured, missing). Marginal Discoloration: (no discoloration), (discoloration but has not penetrated along the margin), (discoloration has present along the). Secondary caries: (No evidence of caries), (Evidence of caries). Color Matching: (100% color match), (Slight mismatched), (Total mismatched). Anatomic Form: (anatomic form), (teeth partially degraded but clinically acceptable), (partially degraded but need to be replaced). Postoperative Sensitivity: (no Postoperative sensitivity), (slight sensitivity), (sever sensitivity).Retention: (no loss) (fracture or loss). Surface Texture: (no defect), (minimal defect), (severed defect).
Clinical evaluation of teeth restored by direct composite.
Time frame: 6 months after applying the restoration
Clinical evaluation of restored tooth was assessed according to USPHS criteria (Alpha, Bravo, Charlie) as following: Marginal Adaptation: (No crevice), (Crevice), (Fractured, missing). Marginal Discoloration: (no discoloration), (discoloration but has not penetrated along the margin), (discoloration has present along the). Secondary caries: (No evidence of caries), (Evidence of caries). Color Matching: (100% color match), (Slight mismatched), (Total mismatched). Anatomic Form: (anatomic form), (teeth partially degraded but clinically acceptable), (partially degraded but need to be replaced). Postoperative Sensitivity: (no Postoperative sensitivity), (slight sensitivity), (sever sensitivity).Retention: (no loss) (fracture or loss). Surface Texture: (no defect), (minimal defect), (severed defect).
Clinical evaluation of teeth restored by direct composite.
Time frame: 12 months after applying the restoration
Clinical evaluation of restored tooth was assessed according to USPHS criteria (Alpha, Bravo, Charlie) as following: Marginal Adaptation: (No crevice), (Crevice), (Fractured, missing). Marginal Discoloration: (no discoloration), (discoloration but has not penetrated along the margin), (discoloration has present along the). Secondary caries: (No evidence of caries), (Evidence of caries). Color Matching: (100% color match), (Slight mismatched), (Total mismatched). Anatomic Form: (anatomic form), (teeth partially degraded but clinically acceptable), (partially degraded but need to be replaced). Postoperative Sensitivity: (no Postoperative sensitivity), (slight sensitivity), (sever sensitivity).Retention: (no loss) (fracture or loss). Surface Texture: (no defect), (minimal defect), (severed defect).
Clinical evaluation of teeth restored by indirect composite.
Time frame: 3 months after applying the restoration
Clinical evaluation of restored tooth was assessed according to USPHS criteria (Alpha, Bravo, Charlie) as following: Marginal Adaptation: (No crevice), (Crevice), (Fractured, missing). Marginal Discoloration: (no discoloration), (discoloration but has not penetrated along the margin), (discoloration has present along the). Secondary caries: (No evidence of caries), (Evidence of caries). Color Matching: (100% color match), (Slight mismatched), (Total mismatched). Anatomic Form: (anatomic form), (teeth partially degraded but clinically acceptable), (partially degraded but need to be replaced). Postoperative Sensitivity: (no Postoperative sensitivity), (slight sensitivity), (sever sensitivity).Retention: (no loss) (fracture or loss). Surface Texture: (no defect), (minimal defect), (severed defect).
Clinical evaluation of teeth restored by indirect composite.
Time frame: 6 months after applying the restoration
Clinical evaluation of restored tooth was assessed according to USPHS criteria (Alpha, Bravo, Charlie) as following: Marginal Adaptation: (No crevice), (Crevice), (Fractured, missing). Marginal Discoloration: (no discoloration), (discoloration but has not penetrated along the margin), (discoloration has present along the). Secondary caries: (No evidence of caries), (Evidence of caries). Color Matching: (100% color match), (Slight mismatched), (Total mismatched). Anatomic Form: (anatomic form), (teeth partially degraded but clinically acceptable), (partially degraded but need to be replaced). Postoperative Sensitivity: (no Postoperative sensitivity), (slight sensitivity), (sever sensitivity).Retention: (no loss) (fracture or loss). Surface Texture: (no defect), (minimal defect), (severed defect).
Clinical evaluation of teeth restored by indirect composite.
Time frame: 12 months after applying the restoration
Clinical evaluation of restored tooth was assessed according to USPHS criteria (Alpha, Bravo, Charlie) as following: Marginal Adaptation: (No crevice), (Crevice), (Fractured, missing). Marginal Discoloration: (no discoloration), (discoloration but has not penetrated along the margin), (discoloration has present along the). Secondary caries: (No evidence of caries), (Evidence of caries). Color Matching: (100% color match), (Slight mismatched), (Total mismatched). Anatomic Form: (anatomic form), (teeth partially degraded but clinically acceptable), (partially degraded but need to be replaced). Postoperative Sensitivity: (no Postoperative sensitivity), (slight sensitivity), (sever sensitivity).Retention: (no loss) (fracture or loss). Surface Texture: (no defect), (minimal defect), (severed defect).
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 29 Mar 2022.
- Background: PubMed 15000003Weerheijm KL. Molar incisor hypomineralization (MIH): clinical presentation, aetiology and management. Dent Update. 2004 Jan-Feb;31(1):9-12. doi: 10.12968/denu.2004.31.1.9.
- Background: PubMed 27121068Silva MJ, Scurrah KJ, Craig JM, Manton DJ, Kilpatrick N. Etiology of molar incisor hypomineralization - A systematic review. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2016 Aug;44(4):342-53. doi: 10.1111/cdoe.12229. Epub 2016 Apr 28.
- Background: PubMed 25674916Melin L, Lundgren J, Malmberg P, Noren JG, Taube F, Cornell DH. XRMA and ToF-SIMS Analysis of Normal and Hypomineralized Enamel. Microsc Microanal. 2015 Apr;21(2):407-21. doi: 10.1017/S1431927615000033. Epub 2015 Feb 12.
- Background: PubMed 20403301Lygidakis NA, Wong F, Jalevik B, Vierrou AM, Alaluusua S, Espelid I. Best Clinical Practice Guidance for clinicians dealing with children presenting with Molar-Incisor-Hypomineralisation (MIH): An EAPD Policy Document. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2010 Apr;11(2):75-81. doi: 10.1007/BF03262716.
- Background: PubMed 30888581Dhareula A, Goyal A, Gauba K, Bhatia SK, Kapur A, Bhandari S. A clinical and radiographic investigation comparing the efficacy of cast metal and indirect resin onlays in rehabilitation of permanent first molars affected with severe molar incisor hypomineralisation (MIH): a 36-month randomised controlled clinical trial. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2019 Oct;20(5):489-500. doi: 10.1007/s40368-019-00430-y. Epub 2019 Mar 19.
- Background: PubMed 31593607Gaton-Hernandez P, Serrano CR, da Silva LAB, de Castaneda ER, da Silva RAB, Pucinelli CM, Manton D, Ustrell-Torrent JM, Nelson-Filho P. Minimally interventive restorative care of teeth with molar incisor hypomineralization and open apex-A 24-month longitudinal study. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2020 Jan;30(1):4-10. doi: 10.1111/ipd.12581. Epub 2019 Oct 24.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Dental Enamel Hypoplasia
RecruitingObservational study
Retention of Pits and Fissure Sealants on Non Carious vs Initial Carious Enamel Lesions in Posterior Teeth
Dental Enamel, Dental Enamel Hypomineralization
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Abdulrhman S Hakmi principal investigator
MSc student in Pedodontics, University of Damascus
Mayssoon Dashash, Phd study director
Professor of Pedodontics, Department of Pedodontics, University of Damascus
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Direct restoration and Indirect restoration in people with Dental Enamel Hypoplasia and Dental Caries, run by Damascus University at 1 site in Syria.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 7 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 29 Mar 2022. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Syria. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Clinical evaluation of teeth restored by direct composite. (time frame: 3 months after applying the restoration). The study lists 6 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05299489, which also lists 6 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 29 Mar 2022.