Necrotic Pulp With Symptomatic Apical PeriodontitisNCT07623629
The Impact of Using Different Final Irrigation Modes on Postoperative Pain Following Root Canal Treatment of Non-vital Mandibular First Molar With Periapical Lesion.
A study testing root canal treatment in people with Necrotic Pulp With Symptomatic Apical Periodontitis, run by Future University in Egypt at 1 site in Egypt.
Trial summary
The goal of this clinical trial is to learn which rinsing of root canals method works best to lower pain after a root canal in adults. The study focuses on participants aged 20 to 40 with an infection in a lower back tooth (mandibular first molar) and a small area of bone loss at the root tip. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 20 to 40 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Necrotic Pulp With Symptomatic Apical Periodontitis
- What is being tested?
- root canal treatment
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 52 participants
- Where
- 1 siteEgypt
- Study dates
- 3 Jan 2026to 1 Oct 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
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 20 to 40 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Lower first molar Classification of root canal configuration according to weine classification: -
- Distal root: any type of root canal configuration given that the portal of exit is through only one apical foramen
- Mesial root: any type of root canal configuration given that the portal of exit is through only one apical foramen(18).
- Patient with mild pre-operative pain with pain score from 0-3
- Medically free patients with no systemic disease: (American Society of Anesthesiologists / (ASA Class I or II).
- The age range is between 20 to 40 years.
Show all 9Show fewer
- Patients have restorable lower permanent molars that were diagnosed with symptomatic apical periodontitis with small to moderate periapical lesion.
- Positive patient's acceptance for participating in the study.
- Patients able to sign informed consent.
Who cannot join
- Patients with systemic conditions that may affect pain perception (e.g., fibromyalgia, chronic pain disorders)
- Patients currently taking or taken analgesics or anti-inflammatory medications before the trial in the last 12 hours.
- Pregnant or lactating females.
- Psychologically disturbed patients.
- Patients with a history of allergy to any medication used in the study are excluded.
- Teeth that have:
Show all 11Show fewer
- Periodontally affected with grade 2 or 3 mobility.
- Not restorable teeth.
- Abnormal anatomy and calcified canals.
- Previous root canal treatment.
- Any patient that matched the inclusion criteria, however had an unintentional errors during procedure, eg: over-instrumentation/over-obturation.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: The Impact of Using Different Final Irrigation Modes on Postoperative Pain Following Root Canal Treatment of Non-vital Mandibular First Molar With Periapical Lesion. "Randomized Controlled Trial"
The goal of this clinical trial is to learn which rinsing of root canals method works best to lower pain after a root canal in adults. The study focuses on participants aged 20 to 40 with an infection in a lower back tooth (mandibular first molar) and a small area of bone loss at the root tip.
The main questions it aims to answer are:
Read more
Does the type of tool used to rinse the tooth root canal change how much pain a participant feels after treatment?
Does the cleaning method lower the number of painkillers a participant needs to take?
Researchers will compare four different rinsing tools-ranging from a standard needle to advanced vacuum and vibration devices-to see if using suction and sound waves can lower pain levels.
Participants will:
Receive a complete root canal treatment in a single visit
Be randomly assigned to one of four cleaning groups (standard rinse, vibration, vacuum, or a combination of both)
Rate their pain on a scale of 0 to 10 at five specific times: before the visit, and at 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours after treatment
Record how many painkiller tablets (Ibuprofen) they take during the two days following the procedure
Read the detailed description
Clinical Study Protocol
- General Information Study Title: The impact of using different final irrigation modes on postoperative pain following root canal treatment of mandibular first molar with symptomatic periapical lesions: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Protocol Date: May 2026 Sponsor/Institution: Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Future University in Egypt. Principal Investigator: Osama Said Abdrabou Mohamed, BDS. Supervisory Committee: * Dr. Adel Abd El Wahed Mahmoud (Future University in Egypt) Dr. Ahmed Maged Negm (NewGiza University) Dr. Hesham Mohamed Salah (Future University in Egypt)
- Abstract \& Rationale Statement of the Problem: Postoperative pain (PP) remains a significant complication in endodontics, occurring in 3% to 58% of cases. It often results from the extrusion of debris or chemical irritants into the periapical tissues during the cleaning and shaping process. Rationale: Conventional needle irrigation (CNI) relies on positive pressure, which increases the risk of apical extrusion. Advanced irrigation activation systems-including Apical Negative Pressure (ANP) and Continuous Apical Negative-Pressure Ultrasonic Irrigation (CANPUI)-aim to improve disinfection efficiency while minimizing the pressure directed toward the apex. This study seeks to determine which activation mode provides the most comfortable postoperative recovery for patients.
- Study Objectives \& Hypotheses Primary Objective: To evaluate and compare the intensity of postoperative pain at 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours following root canal treatment (RCT) using four different final irrigation protocols. Secondary Objective: To assess the frequency and quantity of analgesic intake (Ibuprofen 400mg) among the study groups. Null Hypothesis (H 0
- There is no statistically significant difference in postoperative pain reduction between the tested irrigation activation modes.
- Study Design Trial Design: A prospective, randomized, parallel-group, double-blinded clinical trial. Allocation Ratio: 1:1:1:1. Blinding: Double-blinded. The patient and the outcome assessor will be blinded to the group assignment.
- Participant Selection \& Eligibility 5.1 Inclusion Criteria Age: 20-40 years. Health Status: Systemically healthy (ASA Class I or II). Tooth Type: Lower first permanent molar. Diagnosis: Symptomatic apical periodontitis with a non-vital pulp and a detectable periapical lesion (3-5 mm diameter via CBCT). Anatomy: Mandibular molars with Weine Type III canal configuration in both mesial and distal roots. Consent: Patients must be willing to participate and sign a written informed consent. 5.2 Exclusion Criteria Teeth with previous root canal treatment or calcified canals. Teeth with Grade 2 or 3 mobility or periodontal pockets >3 mm. Patients who have taken analgesics or anti-inflammatory drugs within 12 hours prior to the procedure. Pregnant or lactating females. Patients with chronic pain disorders (e.g., fibromyalgia) or psychological disturbances.
- Interventions (Clinical Protocol) All treatments will be performed in a single visit by a single operator to ensure consistency. 6.1 Common Procedural Steps Diagnosis: Confirmed via clinical exam, thermal tests, periapical radiographs, and CBCT. Anesthesia: Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block (IANB). Isolation: Rubber dam isolation. Preparation: Access cavity using carbide and Endo-Z burs. Working length (WL) determined by electronic apex locator and confirmed by X-ray (0.5-1 mm from apex). Shaping: Crown-down technique using rotary files with 2.5% NaOCl irrigation between each file. 6.2 Experimental Groups (Final Irrigation) After shaping, the final irrigation protocol (2 ml of 17% EDTA for 1 min, followed by 2 ml of 2.5% NaOCl for 1 min) will be activated as follows: Group A (Control - Conventional Needle): 30-gauge side-vented needle placed 2 mm from WL with manual up-and-down movements. Group B (Ultra X - Positive Pressure): Ultrasonic activation using the Ultra X blue tip placed 2 mm from WL (3 cycles). Group C (EndoVac - Apical Negative Pressure): Irrigant delivered via Master Delivery Tip while the microcannula draws fluid via vacuum at the WL. Group D (iVac - CANPUI): Simultaneous ultrasonic activation and negative pressure suction at the working length. 6.3 Obturation \& Restoration Canals will be dried with paper points and obturated using Continuous Wave Condensation with resin-based sealer. Final restoration will be completed with resin composite.
- Outcomes \& Measurement 7.1 Primary Outcome: Postoperative Pain Tool: Modified Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score (0-10). Intervals: Pre-treatment, 6h, 12h, 24h, and 48h. 7.2 Secondary Outcome: Analgesic Intake Data Points: Number of participants requiring medication and the total number of 400mg Ibuprofen tablets consumed.
- Statistical Plan Sample Size: Based on a power of 95% (α=0.05), 52 total patients (13 per group) are required. Analysis: * Normality: Shapiro-Wilk test. Parametric Data: One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc test. Non-parametric Data: Kruskal-Wallis followed by Dunn's post hoc test. Categorical Data: Chi-square test. Software: R statistical software version 4.3.2.
- Ethics \& Dissemination Ethics: Approved by the Ethics Committee of Future University in Egypt.
Confidentiality: All data will be encrypted and stored securely for 1 year.
Publication: Results will be submitted to peer-reviewed dental journals and presented as part of a Master's Degree thesis.
- Being tested
- root canal treatment
- Keywords
- Ivac, apical periodontitis, postoperative pain, single visit root canal treatment, final irrigation protocol
- Medical subject headings
- Periapical Periodontitis, Pain, Postoperative
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
root canal treatmentProcedure or surgery
single visit root canal treatment with final irrigation protocol according to arm
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| side vented needle | Placebo comparator | single visit root canal treatment with final irrigation protocol using side vented needle Receives: Procedure: root canal treatment |
| passive ultrasonic irrigation activation | Active comparator | single visit root canal treatment with final irrigation protocol using ultrasonic (ultraX) irrigation activation protocol Receives: Procedure: root canal treatment |
| apical negative pressure irrigation activation | Active comparator | single visit root canal treatment with final irrigation protocol using apical negative pressure irrigation activation (endovac) Receives: Procedure: root canal treatment |
| iVac™ Apical Negative Pressure Irrigation and Activation System | Active comparator | single visit root canal treatment with final irrigation protocol using iVac™ Apical Negative Pressure Irrigation and Activation System Receives: Procedure: root canal treatment |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
postoperative pain
modifies visual analog scale (vas) with values from 0 to 10, where 0 value means no pain and 10 means worst pain and 6 faces describing the comfort, where the first face means "does not hurt" up to the last face "hurts worst"
Measured: Before treatment, 6 hours after treatment, 12 hours after treatment, 1 day after treatment, 2 days after treatment.
Secondary outcomes (1)
Analgesic intake
Number of tablets taken per patient if any
Measured: 6 hours after treatment, 12 hours after treatment, 1 day after treatment, 2 days after treatment.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted3 Jun 2026
- Study start3 Jan 2026
- Primary completion5 May 2026
- Study completion1 Oct 2026 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Necrotic Pulp With Symptomatic Apical PeriodontitisStudies 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
- Triple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 52 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Future University in Egypt
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Osama Said Abdrabou Mohamed, Future University in Egypt
- Investigators
- hesham mohamed salah, lecturer, Study chair, Future University in Egypt
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07623629
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- FUE.REC (48)/11-2024
- Status last verified
- May 2026
- First submitted
- 11 May 2026
- Last updated
- 3 Jun 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 3 Jun 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Impact of Using Different Final Irrigation Modes on Postoperative Pain Following Root Canal Treatment of Non-vital Mandibular First Molar With Periapical Lesion. "Randomized Controlled Trial"
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07623629
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- FUE.REC (48)/11-2024
- Keywords
- Ivac, apical periodontitis, postoperative pain, single visit root canal treatment, final irrigation protocol
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Active, not recruiting
- Enrolment
- 52 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Future University in EgyptUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 3 Jan 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 5 May 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- 1 Oct 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 3 Jun 2026 (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 goal of this clinical trial is to learn which rinsing of root canals method works best to lower pain after a root canal in adults. The study focuses on participants aged 20 to 40 with an infection in a lower back tooth (mandibular first molar) and a small area of bone loss at the root tip.
The main questions it aims to answer are:
Does the type of tool used to rinse the tooth root canal change how much pain a participant feels after treatment?
Does the cleaning method lower the number of painkillers a participant needs to take?
Researchers will compare four different rinsing tools-ranging from a standard needle to advanced vacuum and vibration devices-to see if using suction and sound waves can lower pain levels.
Participants will:
Receive a complete root canal treatment in a single visit
Be randomly assigned to one of four cleaning groups (standard rinse, vibration, vacuum, or a combination of both)
Rate their pain on a scale of 0 to 10 at five specific times: before the visit, and at 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours after treatment
Record how many painkiller tablets (Ibuprofen) they take during the two days following the procedure
Detailed description
Clinical Study Protocol
- General Information Study Title: The impact of using different final irrigation modes on postoperative pain following root canal treatment of mandibular first molar with symptomatic periapical lesions: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Protocol Date: May 2026 Sponsor/Institution: Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Future University in Egypt. Principal Investigator: Osama Said Abdrabou Mohamed, BDS. Supervisory Committee: * Dr. Adel Abd El Wahed Mahmoud (Future University in Egypt) Dr. Ahmed Maged Negm (NewGiza University) Dr. Hesham Mohamed Salah (Future University in Egypt)
- Abstract \& Rationale Statement of the Problem: Postoperative pain (PP) remains a significant complication in endodontics, occurring in 3% to 58% of cases. It often results from the extrusion of debris or chemical irritants into the periapical tissues during the cleaning and shaping process. Rationale: Conventional needle irrigation (CNI) relies on positive pressure, which increases the risk of apical extrusion. Advanced irrigation activation systems-including Apical Negative Pressure (ANP) and Continuous Apical Negative-Pressure Ultrasonic Irrigation (CANPUI)-aim to improve disinfection efficiency while minimizing the pressure directed toward the apex. This study seeks to determine which activation mode provides the most comfortable postoperative recovery for patients.
- Study Objectives \& Hypotheses Primary Objective: To evaluate and compare the intensity of postoperative pain at 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours following root canal treatment (RCT) using four different final irrigation protocols. Secondary Objective: To assess the frequency and quantity of analgesic intake (Ibuprofen 400mg) among the study groups. Null Hypothesis (H 0
- There is no statistically significant difference in postoperative pain reduction between the tested irrigation activation modes.
- Study Design Trial Design: A prospective, randomized, parallel-group, double-blinded clinical trial. Allocation Ratio: 1:1:1:1. Blinding: Double-blinded. The patient and the outcome assessor will be blinded to the group assignment.
- Participant Selection \& Eligibility 5.1 Inclusion Criteria Age: 20-40 years. Health Status: Systemically healthy (ASA Class I or II). Tooth Type: Lower first permanent molar. Diagnosis: Symptomatic apical periodontitis with a non-vital pulp and a detectable periapical lesion (3-5 mm diameter via CBCT). Anatomy: Mandibular molars with Weine Type III canal configuration in both mesial and distal roots. Consent: Patients must be willing to participate and sign a written informed consent. 5.2 Exclusion Criteria Teeth with previous root canal treatment or calcified canals. Teeth with Grade 2 or 3 mobility or periodontal pockets >3 mm. Patients who have taken analgesics or anti-inflammatory drugs within 12 hours prior to the procedure. Pregnant or lactating females. Patients with chronic pain disorders (e.g., fibromyalgia) or psychological disturbances.
- Interventions (Clinical Protocol) All treatments will be performed in a single visit by a single operator to ensure consistency. 6.1 Common Procedural Steps Diagnosis: Confirmed via clinical exam, thermal tests, periapical radiographs, and CBCT. Anesthesia: Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block (IANB). Isolation: Rubber dam isolation. Preparation: Access cavity using carbide and Endo-Z burs. Working length (WL) determined by electronic apex locator and confirmed by X-ray (0.5-1 mm from apex). Shaping: Crown-down technique using rotary files with 2.5% NaOCl irrigation between each file. 6.2 Experimental Groups (Final Irrigation) After shaping, the final irrigation protocol (2 ml of 17% EDTA for 1 min, followed by 2 ml of 2.5% NaOCl for 1 min) will be activated as follows: Group A (Control - Conventional Needle): 30-gauge side-vented needle placed 2 mm from WL with manual up-and-down movements. Group B (Ultra X - Positive Pressure): Ultrasonic activation using the Ultra X blue tip placed 2 mm from WL (3 cycles). Group C (EndoVac - Apical Negative Pressure): Irrigant delivered via Master Delivery Tip while the microcannula draws fluid via vacuum at the WL. Group D (iVac - CANPUI): Simultaneous ultrasonic activation and negative pressure suction at the working length. 6.3 Obturation \& Restoration Canals will be dried with paper points and obturated using Continuous Wave Condensation with resin-based sealer. Final restoration will be completed with resin composite.
- Outcomes \& Measurement 7.1 Primary Outcome: Postoperative Pain Tool: Modified Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score (0-10). Intervals: Pre-treatment, 6h, 12h, 24h, and 48h. 7.2 Secondary Outcome: Analgesic Intake Data Points: Number of participants requiring medication and the total number of 400mg Ibuprofen tablets consumed.
- Statistical Plan Sample Size: Based on a power of 95% (α=0.05), 52 total patients (13 per group) are required. Analysis: * Normality: Shapiro-Wilk test. Parametric Data: One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc test. Non-parametric Data: Kruskal-Wallis followed by Dunn's post hoc test. Categorical Data: Chi-square test. Software: R statistical software version 4.3.2.
- Ethics \& Dissemination Ethics: Approved by the Ethics Committee of Future University in Egypt.
Confidentiality: All data will be encrypted and stored securely for 1 year.
Publication: Results will be submitted to peer-reviewed dental journals and presented as part of a Master's Degree thesis.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Triple blind (participant, investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 4
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| side vented needle | Placebo comparator | Procedure: root canal treatmentsingle visit root canal treatment with final irrigation protocol using side vented needle |
| passive ultrasonic irrigation activation | Active comparator | Procedure: root canal treatmentsingle visit root canal treatment with final irrigation protocol using ultrasonic (ultraX) irrigation activation protocol |
| apical negative pressure irrigation activation | Active comparator | Procedure: root canal treatmentsingle visit root canal treatment with final irrigation protocol using apical negative pressure irrigation activation (endovac) |
| iVac™ Apical Negative Pressure Irrigation and Activation System | Active comparator | Procedure: root canal treatmentsingle visit root canal treatment with final irrigation protocol using iVac™ Apical Negative Pressure Irrigation and Activation System |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 20 to 40 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (9 listed)
- Lower first molar Classification of root canal configuration according to weine classification: -
- Distal root: any type of root canal configuration given that the portal of exit is through only one apical foramen
- Mesial root: any type of root canal configuration given that the portal of exit is through only one apical foramen(18).
Key exclusion criteria (11 listed)
- Patients with systemic conditions that may affect pain perception (e.g., fibromyalgia, chronic pain disorders)
- Patients currently taking or taken analgesics or anti-inflammatory medications before the trial in the last 12 hours.
- Pregnant or lactating females.
- Psychologically disturbed patients.
- Patients with a history of allergy to any medication used in the study are excluded.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| root canal treatmentsingle visit root canal treatment with final irrigation protocol according to arm | Procedure or surgery | apical negative pressure irrigation activation, iVac™ Apical Negative Pressure Irrigation and Activation System, passive ultrasonic irrigation activation, side vented needle |
Primary outcome
postoperative pain
Time frame: Before treatment, 6 hours after treatment, 12 hours after treatment, 1 day after treatment, 2 days after treatment.
modifies visual analog scale (vas) with values from 0 to 10, where 0 value means no pain and 10 means worst pain and 6 faces describing the comfort, where the first face means "does not hurt" up to the last face "hurts worst"
1 secondary outcome
Analgesic intake
Time frame: 6 hours after treatment, 12 hours after treatment, 1 day after treatment, 2 days after treatment.
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 3 Jun 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Necrotic Pulp With Symptomatic Apical Periodontitis
Active, not recruiting
Evaluation of the Impact of Different Final Irrigation Activation Modes on Healing of Periapical Lesions Related to Permanent Mandibular First Molars Using CBCT.
Necrotic Pulp With Symptomatic Apical Periodontitis
Not yet recruiting
Evaluation of Postoperative Pain and Antimicrobial Efficacy of Selenium Versus Calcium Hydroxide As Intracanal Medication in Mandibular First Molars with Necrotic Pulp and Symptomatic Apical Periodontitis
Necrotic Pulp with Symptomatic Apical Periodontitis, Postoperative Dental Pain
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.
hesham mohamed salah, lecturer study chair
Future University in Egypt
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing root canal treatment in people with Necrotic Pulp With Symptomatic Apical Periodontitis, run by Future University in Egypt 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 9 inclusion and 11 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: under way, not looking for participants, as of the sponsor's last update on 3 Jun 2026. 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. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. 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?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
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?
postoperative pain (time frame: Before treatment, 6 hours after treatment, 12 hours after treatment, 1 day after treatment, 2 days after treatment.). 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 3 Jun 2026; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 31 Oct 2026.