AzTrials
AzTrials

Endodontic InfectionNCT07311291

The Effect of Different Hemostatic Agents on Hemorrhage Control, Pain and Quality of Life After Endodontic Microsurgery.

A study testing Hemostatic Agent 1: Surgical glue (IfaBond, Dipromed, Italy) and Hemostatic Agent 2: Ferric sulfate in people with Endodontic Infection and Periapical Diseases, run by University of Turin, Italy at 1 site in Italy.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Background This randomized clinical trial evaluated the effect of two different hemostatic materials for endodontic microsurgery on bleeding control, postoperative pain and patients' quality of life. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Any age
Conditions the study is for
Endodontic Infection, Periapical Diseases
What is being tested?
Hemostatic Agent 1: Surgical glue (IfaBond, Dipromed, Italy) and Hemostatic Agent 2: Ferric sulfate
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
34 participants
Where
1 siteItaly
Study dates
27 Feb 2025to 31 May 2025
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 Any age
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Child, Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Consecutive informed and consenting healthy subjects (ASA 1-2) of both genders with no medical history of systemic disease and presenting a diagnosis of symptomatic or asymptomatic apical periodontitis in correspondence of endodontically treated teeth with medium (2-5 mm3) and large (≥5 mm3) periapical lesions.
  • Subjects with periapical defects with one or two residual cortical walls.
  • Subjects with clinical indications for retrograde endodontic retreatment: teeth presenting inadequate root canal treatment with periapical radiolucency and impossible access through orthograde retreatment due to the presence of prosthetic restorations, posts, canal blocks and ledges.
  • Subjects with teeth presenting an adequate coronal seal and absence of pathological periodontal records.

Who cannot join

  • Subjects affected by diabetes mellitus.
  • Subjects affected by hypertension.
  • Subjects affected by hepatic or renal diseases.
  • Subjects affected by bleeding disorders, antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy.
  • Women experiencing pregnancy.
  • Subjects with teeth considered not restorable.
Show all 9Show fewer
  • Subjects with dental elements affected by fractures.
  • Subjects with dental elements affected by extensive periodontal defects.
  • Subjects with bone cavity designs with no residual cortical walls.

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Italy1 site
  • Dental School

    Torino

Other trials in Italy

About this study

Official title: The Effect of Different Hemostatic Agents on Hemorrhage Control, Pain and Quality of Life After Endodontic Microsurgery: a Randomized Clinical Trial

Background This randomized clinical trial evaluated the effect of two different hemostatic materials for endodontic microsurgery on bleeding control, postoperative pain and patients' quality of life.

Methods Thirty-four subjects affected by apical periodontitis with clinical and radiographical indications for endodontic microsurgery were randomly divided into two groups: in the first group (n=15) a surgical glue was tested and in the second group (n=19) the ferric sulfate was used for hemostasis. The bleeding and the surgical field visibility during the intervention were evaluated. The postoperative pain and quality of life (QoL) was recorded through a numerical rating scale (NRS) and an Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) questionnaire for seven days. The number of analgesics consumed during the same intervals was also recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using the Chi-Square test, Mann-Whitney test, and Fisher t-test (P=0.05).

Read the detailed description

Eligibility criteria Consecutive informed and consenting healthy subjects (ASA 1-2) of both genders with no medical history of systemic disease and presenting a diagnosis of symptomatic or asymptomatic apical periodontitis in correspondence of endodontically treated teeth with medium (2-5 mm3) and large (≥5 mm3) periapical lesions were enrolled. The diagnosis was performed clinically and radiographically through periapical radiographs and small field of view (FOV) Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). The lesions volume and diameters were evaluated using the dedicated software Mimics 24.0 (Materialise, Belgium). Only periapical defects with one or two residual cortical walls were considered, while bone cavity designs with no cortical walls were excluded. The clinical indications for retrograde endodontic retreatment were reported for all cases: the teeth presented inadequate root canal treatment with periapical radiolucency and impossible access through orthograde retreatment due to the presence of prosthetic restorations, posts, canal blocks and ledges. Moreover, the teeth presented an adequate coronal seal and absence of pathological periodontal records.

The subjects affected by diabetes mellitus, hypertension and hepatic or renal diseases were excluded from the study. Similarly, exclusion criteria included bleeding disorders, pregnancy and antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The teeth that were considered unrestorable and the elements affected by fractures or extensive periodontal defects were also dismissed. A written consensus reporting information about the surgical procedure and the clinical and radiographical follow-up was supplied.

Sample size calculation The sample size calculation was estimated basing on clinical outcomes. In particular, basing on the VAS score reduction as primary endpoint, a study power of 80%, with a significance level of 5%, and a standard deviation of 6.24 was calculated and 10 subjects per set group were needed.

Randomization and allocation The patients were blind about the randomization that was performed by assigning a code. Double blinding was not possible due to the use of different hemostatic agents during the surgical procedure.

Treatment procedure The procedure was completed by one single experienced surgeon in a sterile environment using an operating microscope (OPMI Pro Ergo, Carl Zeiss, Germany). After the administration of local anesthesia with articaine 1:100,000 (Septodont, France) and 10 minutes later lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 1:50,000 (Dentsply Sirona, USA), a full thickness mucoperiosteal flap was elevated. The debridement of the periradicular lesion was obtained using surgical curettes (Hu-Friedy) and the bone crypt was completed with a dedicated bur (#557 SL Lindemann; Brasseler USA, Savannah, GA). After curettage, the surgeon and two independent assistants evaluated the hemorrhage degree and the visibility of the surgical field. Afterwards, in group 1 (n=15) the surgical glue (IfaBond, Dipromed, Italy) was applied for the hemorrhage control in the bone crypt with a needle 23G, while in group 2 (n=19) the ferric sulfate 15.5% (Astringedent) was positioned in the surgical site through compression with a cotton pellet. The qualitative analysis of bleeding score and the visibility of the surgical site after the use of the hemostatic agent was evaluated.

The apical resection of 2-3 mm with a 0º-10º bevel angle was achieved with a surgical bur (#557 SL Lindemann; Brasseler USA, Savannah, GA). Afterwards, a solution of 2% methylene blue was used to stain the apical portion of the root to visualize anatomies, isthmuses and fractures. In both groups the preparation of the apical 3 mm was achieved following the long axis of the root with a piezoelectric device (MiniPiezon Device, EMS, Switzerland) and dedicated tips (ProUltra Surgical Tips, Dentsply Sirona, USA). Root end filling was completed with superEBA sealer (SuperSeal, OGNA, Italy). After irrigation with saline solution and the removal of the hemostatic agent, the wound site was filled with blood clot, and the bleeding recovery was measured using the hemorrhage control score and comparing data with the previous records. Afterwards, the flap was sutured with a 5-0 resorbable suture (Vicryl suture, Ethicon, Switzerland). A post-surgical protocol was presented to the patients. The patients were advised to follow a specific diet, and to dismiss hard physical exercise and smoking. Mouth rinses with chlorexidine digluconate 0.2% mouthwash for seven days were prescribed. A pharmacological prescription including optional analgesics (ibuprofen 600 mg), and no antibiotics was given in any case. All patients were booked for suture removal after five days.

Outcomes According to a previous study, the hemorrhage control and the surgical field view were evaluated assigning a dedicated score. The hemorrhage control and the surgical field view evaluation was performed two times: after the curettage of the bone lesion before the use of the hemostatic agents, and after the hemostasis. The bleeding recovery was evaluated after the removal of the hemostatic agent.

The patients' quality of life (QoL) questionnaire Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) assessed the impact of the surgical procedure on the signs and symptoms affecting the oral and general functions. The questionnaire evaluated different domains: functional limitations, physical pain, psychological discomfort, physical disability, psychological disability, social disability and handicap. A 5-point Likert-like scale (1 = never, 2 = hardly ever, 3 = occasionally, 4 = fairly often, 5 = very often) was introduced. Pain assessment was conducted using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). In this scale a 20-point difference between groups is considered clinically significant. The subjects were asked to record the amount of pain they felt every day after the surgical procedure. Moreover, patients were asked to fill out the frequency of the analgesic intake from immediately after surgery up to 1 week. All subjects were requested to fill out the questionnaire and the NRS scale and to record possible symptoms during the first seven days after surgery. To ensure the correct recording of these forms, they were contacted two times in the first week to check on their status and to answer any possible dilemma regarding the filling of the documents.

Statistical analysis A blinded statistical analysis was performed. A chi-square-test was used for the analysis of the hemorrhage control, while the Fisher t-test was utilized for the quality of life and analgesic intake. Inter-examiner reliability was assessed using Cohen's Kappa statistic. Moreover, the Mann-Whitney U test was used for pain assessment on postoperative days. The statistically significant level was settled with a P value < .05. The software SPSS Statistics v.23.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY) was used for the analysis.

Being tested
Hemostatic Agent 1: Surgical glue (IfaBond, Dipromed, Italy), Hemostatic Agent 2: Ferric sulfate
Keywords
endodontic microsurgery, surgical glue, ferric sulfate, cone-beam computed tomography, hemostatic agents
Medical subject headings
Periapical Diseases

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Hemostatic Agent 1: Surgical glue (IfaBond, Dipromed, Italy)Other

    Hemostatic agents during apical surgery.

  • Hemostatic Agent 2: Ferric sulfateOther

    Hemostatic agents during apical surgery

Study groups in NCT07311291
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Apical SurgeryExperimentalNot described
Receives: Other: Hemostatic Agent 1: Surgical glue (IfaBond, Dipromed, Italy); Other: Hemostatic Agent 2: Ferric sulfate

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Visual Hemorrhage Control (VHC)

    A questionnaire was given to the first, second and third operator. In the questionnaire it was asked to asses the Hemorrhage control with a scale from 0 (No control - worst outcome) to 4 (Total control - better outcome).

    Measured: perioperative

Secondary outcomes (2)
  1. Postoperative pain

    Postoperative pain analyzed through a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). In this scale a 20-point difference between groups is considered clinically significant (0 better outcome, 20 worst outcome).

    Measured: 7 days

  2. Quality of life (QoL)

    Quality of life was recorded through Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14). The questionnaire evaluated different domains: functional limitations, physical pain, psychological discomfort, physical disability, psychological disability, social disability and handicap. A 5-point Likert-like scale (1 = never - better outcome, 2 = hardly ever, 3 = occasionally, 4 = fairly often, 5 = very often - worst outcome) was introduced.

    Measured: 7 Days

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted30 Dec 2025
  2. Study start27 Feb 2025
  3. Primary completion31 May 2025
  4. Study completion31 May 2025

Resources

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
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
34 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT07311291
Sponsor's protocol ID
00272/2023
Status last verified
Feb 2025
First submitted
20 Nov 2025
Last updated
30 Dec 2025
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
No

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Hemostatic Agent 1: Surgical glue (IfaBond, Dipromed, Italy) and Hemostatic Agent 2: Ferric sulfate in people with Endodontic Infection and Periapical Diseases, run by University of Turin, Italy at 1 site in Italy.

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 4 inclusion and 9 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 30 Dec 2025. 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 Italy. 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?

Visual Hemorrhage Control (VHC) (time frame: perioperative). 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 30 Dec 2025.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in