Dental Caries in ChildrenNCT06187259
Comparative Study Between Smart Bur II and Traditional Carbide Bur in Selective Removal of Caries in Permanent Molars
A study testing caries removal by carbide bur and caries removal by polymer bur II in people with Dental Caries in Children, run by Suez Canal University at 1 site in Egypt.
Trial summary
A more biological and conservative technique of caries removal has emerged with minimally invasive restorative dentistry's advent. As a result, Smart Burs II has become a self-limiting, sensitive tool for removing caries. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 8 to 11 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Dental Caries in Children
- What is being tested?
- caries removal by carbide bur and caries removal by polymer bur II
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 30 participants
- Where
- 1 siteEgypt
- Study dates
- 18 Apr 2019to 22 Jun 2021
- 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 11 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child
Who may be able to join
- Healthy children of both genders in the age group of 8-11 years and rated as definitely positive or positive using Frankl Behaviour Rating Scale
- 30 permanent first molars with class I (occlusal) active carious lesion classified as code 5 , according to the international caries detection and assessment system, involving dentin with a cavity opening diameter of 2mm.
- Permanent molars with absence of peri-apical or inter-radicular radiolucency.
Who cannot join
- Molars with developmental anomalies.
- Decayed molars that show clinical or radiographic evidence of pulpal involvement.
- Parental refusal to sign the informed consent.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Efficacy of Smart Burs II ® in Selective Caries Removal in Permanent Molars: Randomized Controlled Trial
A more biological and conservative technique of caries removal has emerged with minimally invasive restorative dentistry's advent. As a result, Smart Burs II has become a self-limiting, sensitive tool for removing caries. The current study aimed to validate and contrast the polymer burs' efficacy (Smart Burs II) versus conventional burs (Carbide burs) for infected carious dentin's selective removal in permanent first molars. Thirty permanent first molars fulfilling the inclusion criteria were chosen in 8-11 years old children with class I occlusal carious lesions. Group 1 (n=15) and Group 2 (n=15) were randomly assigned to have carious dentin removed utilizing standard carbide bur and a smart Bur II, consecutively. By employing caries detector dye, the effectiveness of caries removal was quantified as 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. The volume of removed carious tissue was recorded using impression material which was inserted into a calibrated insulin syringe. A statistically significant difference was discovered in the volume of removed carious tissue between both groups, while the efficiency of caries removal using either bur has no significant difference. Smart Bur II was more conservative in the carious dentin's removal than carbide bur. Smart Bur II was as efficient as carbide bur in caries removal.
Read the detailed description
One of the prime goals of the evolution of minimally invasive dentistry is conserving healthy tooth structure by eliminating infected carious dentin while retaining impacted carious dentin intact and minimizing the needless destruction of teeth. Dentin carious lesions is formed of two distinct layers that differ from one another regarding their microscopic structure and physiological and bacteriological characteristics. The external superficial infected layer is soft, heavily contaminated by bacterial invasion, and incapable of being repaired owing to the collagen fibers' irreversible denaturation. While the affected dentin, which is a hard substance with few bacteria and can be remineralized due to limited collagen degradation, is located beneath the infected layer.
Conventional caries removal could possibly be traumatic as it tends to remove both infected and affected dentin, which may induce an unneeded weakening of the tooth structure and often leads to overextended cavities. Moreover, it has deleterious thermal influences on the pulp. Accordingly, the dental industry has recently witnessed the emergence of the polymer bur, which manufacturers claim is the best for selectively removing caries while minimizing the patient's discomfort. By introducing a polymer prototype bur in 2003, a potential substitute for traditional techniques of removing carious dentin has emerged. This self-limiting polymer bur is known as SmartBurTM, a variant of SmartPrepTM (SS White, Lakewood, NJ, USA). It is a single-use bur-like instrument constructed of a polymer with a lower hardness than healthy dentin. Different sizes are available; #4, #6, and #8 for right angle latch handpieces.
Polymer bur tools resemble conventional burs in appearance, but they are made of unique polymer material rather than metal. The cutting edges are not spiral, like those of a shovel. The polymer material was designed to be softer than healthy dentin (Knoop hardness 70-90) but harder than carious, softening dentin (Knoop hardness 50-70) (Knoop hardness 0-30). Therefore, it has a knoop hardness of 50 kg/mm2, and its cutting elements effectively remove soft dentin but cannot remove healthy dentin.
Materials and methods Sample size calculation The minimum required sample size will be 15 molars in each group. Thus, a total of thirty permanent first molars will be divided into two groups for this study. The sample size was computed as per G*Power software version 3.1.9.3.
Allocation of samples A 1:1 allocation ratio was used to allocate each of the 30 selected permanent first molars to either Group 1 (Carbide Bur group) or Group 2 (Smart Bur II group).
Clinical Procedures and Grouping At the beginning of the dental visit, the "tell-show-do" method was performed, in which the child was introduced to all instruments and equipment used in the treatment session14. A periapical radiograph was taken for each carious molar. The proper isolation was conducted for the selected molars using a rubber dam and suction. local anesthesia was administered during the trial for each patient. The volume of the unprepared carious cavity, for both groups, was measured using impression material (Zhermack Oranwash L light c-silicone), which was inserted in a calibrated insulin syringe and consequently injected into the cavity before caries removal.
After recording the cavity's volume , the impression material was washed with water. The outline form of the cavity of all selected molars was established using a high-speed handpiece and round carbide bur. The removal of carious lesions was carried out for all the selected carious teeth, and they were split into two groups, as per the types of burs used for the removal of caries:
Carbide bur group (Group 1):
Using a slow-speed handpiece and round carbide burs in sizes #12, #14, and #16, based on the lesion's size, caries was removed. When hard dentin was found using a dental probe, carious dentin removal was stopped.
Smart Bur II group (Group 2):
As per the manufacturer's recommendations, carious tissue was removed utilizing smart polymer burs of sizes #4, #6, and #8, depending on the cavity's size, running at a slow speed without water coolant, in circular motions from the center of the lesion outward. Carious dentin removal ceased when the instrument became macroscopically abraded and sharpened and could no longer remove tooth tissues.
Caries detector dye (Red Detector, Cerkamed, Medical Company, Poland) was applied to all treated teeth of both groups as one drop on the defective area and waited 5-10 seconds. After that, irrigation with water for ten seconds was applied as recommended by the manufacturer's instructions. After drying the cavity, the examination was executed using the dental mirror to detect stained dentin sites. Points intensively dyed in red indicated residual caries. Then, the stained dentin was selectively removed by carbide and polymer burs according to each group. This process was frequent until no stain persisted in the cavity. After the full removal of caries in both groups, the cavity volume was again recorded using the same previous procedures of cavity volume measurements.
Assessment procedures Tactile and visual criteria were utilized to validate the clinical efficacy of caries removal in both groups. Moreover, caries removal was confirmed by utilizing caries detector dye (red detector, Cerkamed). Points intensively dyed in red indicated carious dentin. Efficacy was rated and given a numerical value as 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 according to the Ericson rating scale, as shown in (Table 1).
Table 1 Definition of the scores for caries removal Score Definition 0 Complete removal of caries
- Caries is found at the cavity floor.
- Caries is found at the floor and/or one wall.
- Caries is found at the floor and/ or two walls.
- Caries is found at the floor and /or more than two walls
- Caries is found at the margins, walls, and floor of the cavity.
Using impression material and a calibrated insulin syringe for both groups, the amount of removed carious tissue was measured by computing the difference between the cavity's initial volume before caries removal and the final volume of the cavity after caries removal (as previously explained).
All treated cavities were finally restored once all caries had been eliminated.
- Conditions
- Dental Caries in Children
- Being tested
- caries removal by carbide bur, caries removal by polymer bur II
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
caries removal by carbide burDevice
caries was removed using a slow-speed handpiece and round carbide burs in sizes #12, #14, and #16, based on the lesion's size. When hard dentin was found using a dental probe, carious dentin removal was stopped.
caries removal by polymer bur IIDevice
carious tissue was removed utilizing smart polymer burs of sizes #4, #6, and #8, depending on the cavity's size, running at a slow speed without water coolant, in circular motions from the center of the lesion outward. Carious dentin removal ceased when the instrument became macroscopically abraded and sharpened and could no longer remove tooth tissues.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| carbide bur group | Active comparator | carbide burs are extremely hard and can withstand high temperatures. Because of their hardness, carbide burs can maintain a sharp cutting edge and can be used many times without becoming dull. They are best operated at high speeds with light pressure.
Carbide dental bur was designed to, efficiently, remove non-decalcified enamel and dentin, yet, it does not facilitate the differentiation between carious and normal dentin, during cavity preparation. Receives: Device: caries removal by carbide bur |
| polymer bur II group | Experimental | Polymer bur tools resemble conventional burs in appearance, but they are made of unique polymer material rather than metal. The cutting edges are not spiral, like those of a shovel. The polymer material was designed to be softer than healthy dentin (Knoop hardness 70-90) but harder than carious, softening dentin (Knoop hardness 50-70) (Knoop hardness 0-30). Therefore, it has a knoop hardness of 50 kg/mm2, and its cutting elements effectively remove soft dentin but cannot remove healthy dentin. Receives: Device: caries removal by polymer bur II |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Assessment of caries removal efficiency by visual examination
Visual examination to assess the color of dentin and evidence of the presence or absence of soft caries.
Measured: baseline (immediately after caries removal procedures) Up to 3 minutes, no follow up is required.
Assessment of caries removal efficiency by tactile examination
Tactile sensation to assess the texture, hardness, and consistency of dentin, i.e.
the explorer should not stick to the dentin when moved along the surface without a catch or a tug-back sensation.
Measured: baseline (immediately after caries removal procedures) Up to 5 minutes, no follow up is required
Assessment of caries removal efficacy by using caries detector dye
Caries removal efficacy was assessed using the Ericson rating scale "The Ericson rating scale was used to assess the residual caries. Caries removal status scores are defined as 0, 1,2,3,4, or 5, with 5 indicating the highest residual caries.
Measured: baseline (immediately after caries removal procedures) Up to 10 minutes, no follow up is required.
Assessment of the volume of the removed carious tissue in cubic millimeters (mm3)
Using impression material and a calibrated insulin syringe for both groups, the amount of removed carious tissue was measured by computing the difference between the cavity's initial volume before caries removal and the final volume of the cavity after caries removal
Measured: baseline (immediately after caries removal procedures) Up to 15 minutes, no follow up is required.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted2 Jan 2024
- Study start18 Apr 2019
- Primary completion25 May 2021
- Study completion22 Jun 2021
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Dental Caries in ChildrenStudies 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
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Suez Canal University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Ghada AH El baz, professor, Principal investigator, Suez Canal University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06187259
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Caries removal by polymer burs
- Status last verified
- Nov 2023
- First submitted
- 29 Nov 2023
- Last updated
- 13 Feb 2024
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 13 Feb 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Efficacy of Smart Burs II ® in Selective Caries Removal in Permanent Molars: Randomized Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06187259
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Caries removal by polymer burs
- Conditions
- Dental Caries in Children
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Suez Canal UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 18 Apr 2019 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 25 May 2021 (actual)
- Study completion
- 22 Jun 2021 (actual)
- First posted
- 2 Jan 2024 (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.
A more biological and conservative technique of caries removal has emerged with minimally invasive restorative dentistry's advent. As a result, Smart Burs II has become a self-limiting, sensitive tool for removing caries. The current study aimed to validate and contrast the polymer burs' efficacy (Smart Burs II) versus conventional burs (Carbide burs) for infected carious dentin's selective removal in permanent first molars. Thirty permanent first molars fulfilling the inclusion criteria were chosen in 8-11 years old children with class I occlusal carious lesions. Group 1 (n=15) and Group 2 (n=15) were randomly assigned to have carious dentin removed utilizing standard carbide bur and a smart Bur II, consecutively. By employing caries detector dye, the effectiveness of caries removal was quantified as 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. The volume of removed carious tissue was recorded using impression material which was inserted into a calibrated insulin syringe. A statistically significant difference was discovered in the volume of removed carious tissue between both groups, while the efficiency of caries removal using either bur has no significant difference. Smart Bur II was more conservative in the carious dentin's removal than carbide bur. Smart Bur II was as efficient as carbide bur in caries removal.
Detailed description
One of the prime goals of the evolution of minimally invasive dentistry is conserving healthy tooth structure by eliminating infected carious dentin while retaining impacted carious dentin intact and minimizing the needless destruction of teeth. Dentin carious lesions is formed of two distinct layers that differ from one another regarding their microscopic structure and physiological and bacteriological characteristics. The external superficial infected layer is soft, heavily contaminated by bacterial invasion, and incapable of being repaired owing to the collagen fibers' irreversible denaturation. While the affected dentin, which is a hard substance with few bacteria and can be remineralized due to limited collagen degradation, is located beneath the infected layer.
Conventional caries removal could possibly be traumatic as it tends to remove both infected and affected dentin, which may induce an unneeded weakening of the tooth structure and often leads to overextended cavities. Moreover, it has deleterious thermal influences on the pulp. Accordingly, the dental industry has recently witnessed the emergence of the polymer bur, which manufacturers claim is the best for selectively removing caries while minimizing the patient's discomfort. By introducing a polymer prototype bur in 2003, a potential substitute for traditional techniques of removing carious dentin has emerged. This self-limiting polymer bur is known as SmartBurTM, a variant of SmartPrepTM (SS White, Lakewood, NJ, USA). It is a single-use bur-like instrument constructed of a polymer with a lower hardness than healthy dentin. Different sizes are available; #4, #6, and #8 for right angle latch handpieces.
Polymer bur tools resemble conventional burs in appearance, but they are made of unique polymer material rather than metal. The cutting edges are not spiral, like those of a shovel. The polymer material was designed to be softer than healthy dentin (Knoop hardness 70-90) but harder than carious, softening dentin (Knoop hardness 50-70) (Knoop hardness 0-30). Therefore, it has a knoop hardness of 50 kg/mm2, and its cutting elements effectively remove soft dentin but cannot remove healthy dentin.
Materials and methods Sample size calculation The minimum required sample size will be 15 molars in each group. Thus, a total of thirty permanent first molars will be divided into two groups for this study. The sample size was computed as per G*Power software version 3.1.9.3.
Allocation of samples A 1:1 allocation ratio was used to allocate each of the 30 selected permanent first molars to either Group 1 (Carbide Bur group) or Group 2 (Smart Bur II group).
Clinical Procedures and Grouping At the beginning of the dental visit, the "tell-show-do" method was performed, in which the child was introduced to all instruments and equipment used in the treatment session14. A periapical radiograph was taken for each carious molar. The proper isolation was conducted for the selected molars using a rubber dam and suction. local anesthesia was administered during the trial for each patient. The volume of the unprepared carious cavity, for both groups, was measured using impression material (Zhermack Oranwash L light c-silicone), which was inserted in a calibrated insulin syringe and consequently injected into the cavity before caries removal.
After recording the cavity's volume , the impression material was washed with water. The outline form of the cavity of all selected molars was established using a high-speed handpiece and round carbide bur. The removal of carious lesions was carried out for all the selected carious teeth, and they were split into two groups, as per the types of burs used for the removal of caries:
Carbide bur group (Group 1):
Using a slow-speed handpiece and round carbide burs in sizes #12, #14, and #16, based on the lesion's size, caries was removed. When hard dentin was found using a dental probe, carious dentin removal was stopped.
Smart Bur II group (Group 2):
As per the manufacturer's recommendations, carious tissue was removed utilizing smart polymer burs of sizes #4, #6, and #8, depending on the cavity's size, running at a slow speed without water coolant, in circular motions from the center of the lesion outward. Carious dentin removal ceased when the instrument became macroscopically abraded and sharpened and could no longer remove tooth tissues.
Caries detector dye (Red Detector, Cerkamed, Medical Company, Poland) was applied to all treated teeth of both groups as one drop on the defective area and waited 5-10 seconds. After that, irrigation with water for ten seconds was applied as recommended by the manufacturer's instructions. After drying the cavity, the examination was executed using the dental mirror to detect stained dentin sites. Points intensively dyed in red indicated residual caries. Then, the stained dentin was selectively removed by carbide and polymer burs according to each group. This process was frequent until no stain persisted in the cavity. After the full removal of caries in both groups, the cavity volume was again recorded using the same previous procedures of cavity volume measurements.
Assessment procedures Tactile and visual criteria were utilized to validate the clinical efficacy of caries removal in both groups. Moreover, caries removal was confirmed by utilizing caries detector dye (red detector, Cerkamed). Points intensively dyed in red indicated carious dentin. Efficacy was rated and given a numerical value as 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 according to the Ericson rating scale, as shown in (Table 1).
Table 1 Definition of the scores for caries removal Score Definition 0 Complete removal of caries
- Caries is found at the cavity floor.
- Caries is found at the floor and/or one wall.
- Caries is found at the floor and/ or two walls.
- Caries is found at the floor and /or more than two walls
- Caries is found at the margins, walls, and floor of the cavity.
Using impression material and a calibrated insulin syringe for both groups, the amount of removed carious tissue was measured by computing the difference between the cavity's initial volume before caries removal and the final volume of the cavity after caries removal (as previously explained).
All treated cavities were finally restored once all caries had been eliminated.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| carbide bur group | Active comparator | Device: caries removal by carbide burcarbide burs are extremely hard and can withstand high temperatures. Because of their hardness, carbide burs can maintain a sharp cutting edge and can be used many times without becoming dull. They are best operated at high speeds with light pressure. Carbide dental bur was designed to, efficiently, remove non-decalcified enamel and dentin, yet, it does not facilitate the differentiation between carious and normal dentin, during cavity preparation. |
| polymer bur II group | Experimental | Device: caries removal by polymer bur IIPolymer bur tools resemble conventional burs in appearance, but they are made of unique polymer material rather than metal. The cutting edges are not spiral, like those of a shovel. The polymer material was designed to be softer than healthy dentin (Knoop hardness 70-90) but harder than carious, softening dentin (Knoop hardness 50-70) (Knoop hardness 0-30). Therefore, it has a knoop hardness of 50 kg/mm2, and its cutting elements effectively remove soft dentin but cannot remove healthy dentin. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 8 to 11 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Healthy children of both genders in the age group of 8-11 years and rated as definitely positive or positive using Frankl Behaviour Rating Scale
- 30 permanent first molars with class I (occlusal) active carious lesion classified as code 5 , according to the international caries detection and assessment system, involving dentin with a cavity opening diameter of 2mm.
- Permanent molars with absence of peri-apical or inter-radicular radiolucency.
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Molars with developmental anomalies.
- Decayed molars that show clinical or radiographic evidence of pulpal involvement.
- Parental refusal to sign the informed consent.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| caries removal by carbide burcaries was removed using a slow-speed handpiece and round carbide burs in sizes #12, #14, and #16, based on the lesion's size. When hard dentin was found using a dental probe, carious dentin removal was stopped. | Device | carbide bur group |
| caries removal by polymer bur IIcarious tissue was removed utilizing smart polymer burs of sizes #4, #6, and #8, depending on the cavity's size, running at a slow speed without water coolant, in circular motions from the center of the lesion outward. Carious dentin removal ceased when the instrument became macroscopically abraded and sharpened and could no longer remove tooth tissues. | Device | polymer bur II group |
Primary outcome
Assessment of caries removal efficiency by visual examination
Time frame: baseline (immediately after caries removal procedures) Up to 3 minutes, no follow up is required.
Visual examination to assess the color of dentin and evidence of the presence or absence of soft caries.
Assessment of caries removal efficiency by tactile examination
Time frame: baseline (immediately after caries removal procedures) Up to 5 minutes, no follow up is required
Tactile sensation to assess the texture, hardness, and consistency of dentin, i.e. the explorer should not stick to the dentin when moved along the surface without a catch or a tug-back sensation.
Assessment of caries removal efficacy by using caries detector dye
Time frame: baseline (immediately after caries removal procedures) Up to 10 minutes, no follow up is required.
Caries removal efficacy was assessed using the Ericson rating scale "The Ericson rating scale was used to assess the residual caries. Caries removal status scores are defined as 0, 1,2,3,4, or 5, with 5 indicating the highest residual caries.
Assessment of the volume of the removed carious tissue in cubic millimeters (mm3)
Time frame: baseline (immediately after caries removal procedures) Up to 15 minutes, no follow up is required.
Using impression material and a calibrated insulin syringe for both groups, the amount of removed carious tissue was measured by computing the difference between the cavity's initial volume before caries removal and the final volume of the cavity after caries removal
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 13 Feb 2024.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes
Related trials for Dental Caries in Children
Not yet recruiting
This Feasibility Study Will Evaluate the Study Protocols for Treatment and Follow-up Controls of Primary Molars With Caries in Children Treated With Stainless Steel Crowns or Conventional Fillings. Treatment Success and Potential Failures Will be Followed at 3, 6 and 12 Months Post Treatment.
Dental Caries, Early Childhood Caries (ECC)
Recruiting
A Study to Evaluate the Cariostatic Efficacy of Nano Silver Fluoride (NSF) vs. Silver Diamine Fluoride (SDF) in Children
Dental Caries
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Bioactive Glass Varnish on Salivary Parameters in Children: Randomized Controlled Trial
Prevention of Dental Caries
Active, not recruiting
Luting Cements for Prefabricated Zirconia Crown Retention in Primary Anterior Teeth in Children
Dental Caries, Tooth Injuries
Recruiting
Powered vs Manual Toothbrush Use: Its Effect on Caries Risk in Pre-Adolescents
Caries Risk, Caries, Dental
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.
Ghada AH El baz, professor principal investigator
Suez Canal University
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing caries removal by carbide bur and caries removal by polymer bur II in people with Dental Caries in Children, run by Suez Canal University at 1 site in Egypt.
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 3 inclusion and 3 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 13 Feb 2024. 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 Egypt. 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?
Assessment of caries removal efficiency by visual examination (time frame: baseline (immediately after caries removal procedures) Up to 3 minutes, no follow up is required.). The study lists 4 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
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 13 Feb 2024.