Ignite Creation Date:
2024-10-26 @ 3:39 PM
Last Modification Date:
2024-10-26 @ 3:39 PM
Study NCT ID:
NCT06575062
Status:
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
Last Update Posted:
None
First Post:
2024-08-11
Brief Title:
The Effect of Different Treatment Methods on the Apical Closure and Treatment Success in Permanent First Molars
Sponsor:
None
Organization:
None
Study Overview
Official Title:
The Effect of Different Treatment Methods on Apical Closure and Treatment Success in Immature Permanent First Molars With Reversible Pulpitis
Status:
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
Status Verified Date:
2024-08
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
No
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
The purpose of this thesis study is to evaluate the clinical and radiographic success of direct capping and pulpotomy applications using ProRoot MTA mineral trioxide aggregate in lower permanent first molars with reversible pulpitis symptoms that have not yet completed their root development Additionally the study aims to assess the effects of these treatments on maturogenesis specifically root development and apical closure
Detailed Description:
The objective of this thesis is to investigate the effectiveness of direct capping and pulpotomy treatments using ProRoot MTA in managing reversible pulpitis in lower permanent first molars that have not yet achieved full root development This study focuses on assessing both clinical and radiographic outcomes of these dental procedures Specifically it aims to determine the impact of these treatments on the natural progression of root formation and the closure of the root apex a process known as maturogenesis By examining these factors the study seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of how ProRoot MTA can be utilized to facilitate proper root development and healing in immature permanent molars affected by reversible pulpitis
The study will test the following hypotheses
Hypothesis 1 There is no difference between the clinical and radiographic success of direct capping and pulpotomy treatments in cases of reversible pulpal involvement of immature permanent molars
Hypothesis 2 In cases of reversible pulpal involvement of immature permanent molars direct capping and pulpotomy treatments have no effect on apexogenesis
Hypothesis 3 Different root development levels of the teeth have no effect on the success of direct capping and pulpotomy treatments in cases of reversible pulpal involvement of immature permanent molars
The main questions the study aims to answer are
What are the clinical and radiographic outcomes at 3 6 12 and 18 months after treatment with direct capping and pulpotomy using ProRoot MTA
How do these treatments affect root development and apical closure
Participants in this study will
Receive either direct capping or pulpotomy treatments using ProRoot MTA Undergo clinical and radiographic evaluations at 3 6 12 and 18 months post-treatment
Have their root development stages categorized according to the Moorrees classification R½ R¾ Rc A½ to assess the impact of treatments on maturogenesis
The study aims to provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of ProRoot MTA in treating reversible pulpitis in immature permanent molars contributing to improved clinical practices and patient outcomes
Clinical Evaluation Criteria
Presence of spontaneous long-lasting or throbbing pain Sensitivity to percussion and palpation Presence of a fistula or swelling in the buccal or lingual region Abnormal tooth mobility
Radiological Evaluation Criteria
Widening of the periodontal space Radiolucency in the interradicular or periradicular regions Evidence of internal or external root resorption Monitoring of root development stages according to the Moorrees classification This study aims to provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of ProRoot MTA in treating reversible pulpitis in immature permanent molars contributing to improved clinical practices and patient outcomes
The study will test the following hypotheses
Hypothesis 1 There is no difference between the clinical and radiographic success of direct capping and pulpotomy treatments in cases of reversible pulpal involvement of immature permanent molars
Hypothesis 2 In cases of reversible pulpal involvement of immature permanent molars direct capping and pulpotomy treatments have no effect on apexogenesis
Hypothesis 3 Different root development levels of the teeth have no effect on the success of direct capping and pulpotomy treatments in cases of reversible pulpal involvement of immature permanent molars
The main questions the study aims to answer are
What are the clinical and radiographic outcomes at 3 6 12 and 18 months after treatment with direct capping and pulpotomy using ProRoot MTA
How do these treatments affect root development and apical closure
Participants in this study will
Receive either direct capping or pulpotomy treatments using ProRoot MTA Undergo clinical and radiographic evaluations at 3 6 12 and 18 months post-treatment
Have their root development stages categorized according to the Moorrees classification R½ R¾ Rc A½ to assess the impact of treatments on maturogenesis
The study aims to provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of ProRoot MTA in treating reversible pulpitis in immature permanent molars contributing to improved clinical practices and patient outcomes
Clinical Evaluation Criteria
Presence of spontaneous long-lasting or throbbing pain Sensitivity to percussion and palpation Presence of a fistula or swelling in the buccal or lingual region Abnormal tooth mobility
Radiological Evaluation Criteria
Widening of the periodontal space Radiolucency in the interradicular or periradicular regions Evidence of internal or external root resorption Monitoring of root development stages according to the Moorrees classification This study aims to provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of ProRoot MTA in treating reversible pulpitis in immature permanent molars contributing to improved clinical practices and patient outcomes
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
None
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?:
None