Evaluation of Intracanal Reinforcement with Short Composite Post in Upper Primary Incisors with Severly Carious Teeth As in Early Childhood Caries Cases Using Randomized Clinical Trial

Cairo University (CU)

Status: Not yet enrolling

Conditions: Intracanal Reinfocement; Composite Post

Treatments: Procedure: intracanal reinforcement using short composite post; Procedure: no intracanal reinforcement

Study type: Interventional

Funder types: Other

Identifiers

NCT06740643

intracanal reinforcement

Details and patient eligibility

About

Severely damaged incisors may lead to difficulty in speech, decreased masticatory efficiency, abnormal tongue habits, subsequent malocclusions, and psychological and self-esteem problems. There are several methods mentioned in the literature for the restoration of severely decayed primary anterior teeth. The benefits of pulp therapy include: removing cavitations or defects to eliminate areas that are susceptible to caries; stopping the progression of tooth demineralization; restoring the integrity of tooth structure; preventing the spread of infection and preventing the shifting of teeth due to loss of tooth structure. The risks of pulp therapy include lessening the longevity of teeth by making them more susceptible to fracture as after removal of gross caries lesion and gaining access to the pulp the tooth become too weak, recurrent lesions, restoration failure, complications, and iatrogenic damage to adjacent teeth.

There are different techniques can be used for gaining intracanal retention in primary teeth. one of these techniques is resin composite posts.

Composite post restorations have been in used in primary teeth from 1986. They yield satisfactory results when there is normal masticatory function, a balanced diet, and hygiene control.

The evidence to support any method of intracanal reinforcement for restoring grossly broken down anterior teeth is presently lacking.

This study aims to Evaluate the intracanal reinforcement with short composite post in upper primary incisors versus no reinforcement.

Enrollment: 62 estimated patients

Sex: All

Ages: 3 to 5 years old

Volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion criteria

• Children Criteria:

  • Medically free.
  • Cooperative patient.
  • Age (3 - 5 years)

Incisors criteria:

• Upper primary incisors show large carious lesions.

Radiographic criteria:

• No evidence of internal/external pathologic root resorption.

Exclusion criteria

• • Uncooperative children.

  • Children with systemic disease.
  • Refusal of participation in the study.

Trial design

Primary purpose: Treatment

Allocation: Randomized

Interventional model: Parallel Assignment

Masking: Single Blind

---

62 participants in 2 patient groups

intracanal reinforcement with short compsite post

Experimental group

Treatment:

Procedure: intracanal reinforcement using short composite post

no intracanal reinforcement

Active Comparator group

Treatment:

Procedure: no intracanal reinforcement