NCT03786302

Brief Summary

The aim of this study was to assess clinically, radiographically, and histologically the regenerative ability of Tailored Amorphous Mulioporous (TAMP-BG) bioglass in comparison to Biodentine™ (BD) in pulpotomized primary teeth.

Trial Health

57
Monitor

Trial Health Score

Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach

Enrollment
102

participants targeted

Target at P50-P75 for phase_2

Timeline
Completed

Started Dec 2016

Geographic Reach
1 country

1 active site

Status
terminated

Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.

Trial Relationships

Click on a node to explore related trials.

Study Timeline

Key milestones and dates

Study Start

First participant enrolled

December 6, 2016

Completed
1.7 years until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

August 15, 2018

Completed
2 months until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

October 20, 2018

Completed
2 months until next milestone

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

December 18, 2018

Completed
8 days until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

December 26, 2018

Completed
Last Updated

October 14, 2020

Status Verified

October 1, 2020

Enrollment Period

1.7 years

First QC Date

December 18, 2018

Last Update Submit

October 11, 2020

Conditions

Keywords

TAMP BGBiodentineRegenerative materialspulp therapy

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (7)

  • Absence of clinical signs of pulp degeneration.

    Teeth were considered clinically successful when they showed no signs of pain, sensitivity to percussion, swelling, fistula or pathologic mobility

    1 month postoperatively

  • Percentage of Teeth with no clinical signs of pulp degeneration.

    Teeth were considered clinically successful when they showed no signs of pain, sensitivity to percussion, swelling, fistula or pathologic mobility

    3 months postoperatively

  • Percentage of Teeth with no clinical signs of pulp degeneration.

    Teeth were considered clinically successful when they showed no signs of pain, sensitivity to percussion, swelling, fistula or pathologic mobility

    6 months postoperatively

  • Percentage of Teeth with no clinical signs of pulp degeneration.

    Teeth were considered clinically successful when they showed no signs of pain, sensitivity to percussion, swelling, fistula or pathologic mobility

    9 months postoperatively

  • Percentage of Teeth with no clinical signs of pulp degeneration.

    Teeth were considered clinically successful when they showed no signs of pain, sensitivity to percussion, swelling, fistula or pathologic mobility

    12 months postoperatively

  • Percentage of Teeth with no radiographic signs of pulp degeneration.

    Digital postoperative periapical radiographs were obtained and assessed for signs of pulp degeneration. Teeth were considered radiographically successful when they showed no periapical or interradicular radiolucency, abnormal root resorption or periodontal ligament space widening

    6 months postoperatively

  • Percentage of Teeth with no radiographic signs of pulp degeneration.

    Digital postoperative periapical radiographs were obtained and assessed for signs of pulp degeneration. Teeth were considered radiographically successful when they showed no periapical or interradicular radiolucency, abnormal root resorption or periodontal ligament space widening

    12 months postoperatively

Secondary Outcomes (5)

  • Percentage of teeth with radiographic evidence of dentin bridge formation

    6 months postoperatively

  • Percentage of teeth with radiographic evidence of dentin bridge formation

    12 months postoperatively

  • Dentin bridge formation using light microscopy

    6 weeks

  • Inflammatory response using light microscopy

    6 weeks

  • The Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) analysis.

    6 weeks

Study Arms (2)

TAMP bioglass

EXPERIMENTAL

Tailored amorphous multiporous bioglass (TAMP-BG) of 70% SiO2 / 30% CaO was prepared according to Wang et al. (2011, 2013) in the tissue engineering lab, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University as follows: Scaffolds were grounded to 180- to 300-μm particle size and sterilized at 180°C for 2 hours. The resulting powder was mixed with distilled water to obtain a putty like consistency that was carried to the pulp chamber and condensed lightly on the pulp stumps.

Drug: TAMP bioglass

Biodentine ™

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Biodentine ™ (BD) pre-dosed capsule were gently tapped on a hard surface to diffuse the powder. Five drops of the liquid from the single dose dispenser were poured into the capsule and mixed for 30 seconds at 4,200 rpm in an amalgamator according to manufacturer's instructions to obtain putty- like consistency. (Powder-liquid system). It was then be carried to the pulp chamber and condensed lightly on the pulp stumps. Final restoration was applied after 12 minutes, allowing Biodentine ™ to set.

Drug: Biodentine

Interventions

TAMP bioglass compared to Biodentine in the regeneration on pulpotomized primary teeth

Also known as: 70S30C bioglass
TAMP bioglass

TAMP bioglass compared to Biodentine in the regeneration on pulpotomized primary teeth

Biodentine ™

Eligibility Criteria

Age5 Years - 9 Years
Sexall
Healthy VolunteersNo
Age GroupsChild (0-17)

You may qualify if:

  • Children free of any systemic disease or special health care needs.
  • Children not receiving any anti-inflammatory medication.
  • Cooperative children (positive/ definitely positive) according to Frankl's behavior rating scale.
  • Restorable teeth.
  • Teeth with vital carious pulp exposure that will bleed upon entering the pulp chamber and not requiring more than 5 minutes to achieve hemostasis after coronal pulp amputation.
  • Teeth indicated for extraction for orthodontic purposes with the previously mentioned criteria (required for a subgroup for assessment of histological and inflammatory response outcomes).

You may not qualify if:

  • Teeth with clinical or radiographic signs of pulp degeneration.

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

Study Sites (1)

Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University

Alexandria, 21512, Egypt

Location

Related Publications (6)

  • Wang S, Falk MM, Rashad A, Saad MM, Marques AC, Almeida RM, Marei MK, Jain H. Evaluation of 3D nano-macro porous bioactive glass scaffold for hard tissue engineering. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2011 May;22(5):1195-203. doi: 10.1007/s10856-011-4297-4. Epub 2011 Mar 29.

    PMID: 21445655BACKGROUND
  • Wang S, Kowal TJ, Marei MK, Falk MM, Jain H. Nanoporosity significantly enhances the biological performance of engineered glass tissue scaffolds. Tissue Eng Part A. 2013 Jul;19(13-14):1632-40. doi: 10.1089/ten.TEA.2012.0585. Epub 2013 Mar 26.

    PMID: 23427819BACKGROUND
  • Stanley HR, Clark AE, Pameijer CH, Louw NP. Pulp capping with a modified bioglass formula (#A68-modified). Am J Dent. 2001 Aug;14(4):227-32.

    PMID: 11699742BACKGROUND
  • Horsted P, El Attar K, Langeland K. Capping of monkey pulps with Dycal and a Ca-eugenol cement. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1981 Nov;52(5):531-53. doi: 10.1016/0030-4220(81)90366-2.

    PMID: 6946381BACKGROUND
  • Shayegan A, Jurysta C, Atash R, Petein M, Abbeele AV. Biodentine used as a pulp-capping agent in primary pig teeth. Pediatr Dent. 2012 Nov-Dec;34(7):e202-8.

    PMID: 23265156BACKGROUND
  • Elhamouly Y, El Backly RM, Talaat DM, Omar SS, El Tantawi M, Dowidar KML. Tailored 70S30C Bioactive glass induces severe inflammation as pulpotomy agent in primary teeth: an interim analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2021 Jun;25(6):3775-3787. doi: 10.1007/s00784-020-03707-5. Epub 2021 Jan 6.

MeSH Terms

Interventions

tricalcium silicate

Study Officials

  • Yasmine I El-Hamouly, MSc

    Alexandria University

    PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
  • Karin ML Dowidar, PhD

    Alexandria University

    STUDY DIRECTOR
  • Samia Soliman, PhD

    Alexandria University

    STUDY DIRECTOR
  • Dalia AM Talaat, PhD

    Alexandria University

    STUDY DIRECTOR
  • Rania M El Backly, PhD

    Alexandria University

    STUDY DIRECTOR

Study Design

Study Type
interventional
Phase
phase 2
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Masking
TRIPLE
Who Masked
PARTICIPANT, CARE PROVIDER, OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
Masking Details
The operator will not be blinded to the treatment type. However, the participants, their care givers, the expert assessing the histologic and inflammatory changes and the statistician will be blinded to the treatment groups.
Purpose
TREATMENT
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Model Details: Study group (assigned to TAMP bioglass), and Control group (assigned to Biodentine ™).
Sponsor Type
OTHER
Responsible Party
SPONSOR INVESTIGATOR
PI Title
Clinical Instructor

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

December 18, 2018

First Posted

December 26, 2018

Study Start

December 6, 2016

Primary Completion

August 15, 2018

Study Completion

October 20, 2018

Last Updated

October 14, 2020

Record last verified: 2020-10

Locations