CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT02075801SealantUpdated Mar 3, 2014

10-years Clinical Trial of Sealed of Margin Failures

An observational study in Dental Caries Secondary to Acquired Defects of Tooth Structure, sponsored by University of Chile. Completed at 1 site in Chile. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 80 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2014-03-03.

Sponsored by University of Chile · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Case-control
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
32
Ages
18 Years to 80 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

  • Assess the effectiveness of sealing localized marginal defects of amalgam restorations that were initially scheduled for replacement of restorations.
  • The hypothesis was that sealed defective margins of the amalgam restorations shows similar performance than replacement amalgam restorations.
Read the detailed description

Study Design

Were examined 157 patients with 586 amalgam restorations that were recruited at the Operative Dentistry Clinic, at the Dental School, University of Chile with the indication of amalgam replacements, of them, a cohort of thirty two patients (19 females and 13 males, mean age = 27 years old), with 73 Class I amalgam restorations, that presented one or more localized margin defects (Bravo or Charlie according to modified United State Public Health Service, USPHS criteria), were included in the study. The protocol was approved by the Institutional Research Ethics Committee of the Dental School at the University of Chile, Investigation Project, School of Dentistry (0205) and all patients signed the informed consent form and completed the registration form. Only Faculty members were accepted to provide the treatment.

Treatment Groups Criteria: 73 restorations with defective margins were evaluated in accordance with the modified USPHS criteria and assigned to either the sealant (n=26), repair (n=21) and control groups (n=26).

Restorations Assessment: The quality of the restorations were evaluated using the modified U.S. Public Health System/Ryge criteria. Two examiners assessed the restorations independently and by visual and tactile (mouth mirror number 5) examination using an explorer (N° 23) and indirectly by radiographic, examination, for interproximal observation (Bite Wing). All the restorations were examined at baseline and each year during four and ten years after treatment. The restorations assessment was carried out by five parameters: marginal adaptation (MA), roughness (R), secondary caries (SC), marginal stain (MS) and teeth sensitivity (TS). If any difference was recorded between the 2 independent examiners, and they did not reach an agreement, a third clinician was called to assist with the process decision. If the three clinicians they did not reach an agreement, the lower score was recorded. All three clinicians participated in calibration exercises at the beginning and before the last examination took place and the inter-examiner reliability results were Kappa=0.74 at the baseline and Kappa=0.87 at the ten year.

A change from Bravo to Alpha was considered an improvement and a change from Alpha to Bravo was considered downgrade.

Caries risk assessment: A graphical computed program (CARIOGRAM) was used for individual´s patients caries risk assessed, the program weighted the interaction between the following 10 caries related factors: Caries experience, related general disease, diet contents, diet frequency, plaque amount by Silness Löe Index, semi quantitative detection of mutans streptococci and lactobacilli in saliva by Caries Risk Test (CRT), fluoride program, amount of saliva stimulated secretion by CRT Buffer (Vivadent), saliva buffer capacity and clinical judgment. Patients were classifying in high, intermediate and low caries risk. Additionally the results also indicate where targeted actions to improve the situation will have the best effect.

Patients were recalled ten years after the treatment, for clinical assessment by the same examiners, applying the same criteria used at baseline. Failed restorations were removed from the study and treated according to the diagnosed needs.

Statistical analysis The ordinal dependent variable was changed in level of the modified USPHS criteria from the baseline value. The assigned score of each restoration reflected the worst result for any of the parameters. The results of each group in terms of degradation or upgrade were analyzed by Friedman range non-parametric test to compare the pre and postoperative conditions. Additionally, the performance of all groups was contrasted using the Mann Whitney test to determine the differences between the upgrade and downgrade of the restoration´s quality. The statistical significance was set at 95%, α=0.05 and β=0.80 for statistical analysis.

02

Conditions studied

  • Dental Caries Secondary to Acquired Defects of Tooth Structure

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Sealant, Margins Defect, Amalgam
03

In context

Dental Caries

1,107 studies on the registry are indexed under Dental Caries; 197 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 32 is below the median of 180 across 176 observational studies indexed under Dental Caries.

Browse Dental Caries studies →

Lead sponsor

University of Chile is the lead sponsor of 191 studies on the registry; 36 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 80 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes
Sampling method
Probability sample

Study population

Patients of the Operative Dentistry Clinics, School of Dentistry, University of Chile

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients with amalgam restorations with marginal deficiencies that were judged to be suitable for sealing.
  • Older than 18 years of age ¨
  • More than 20 teeth in their mouth
  • The restorations had to be in functional occlusion with an opposing natural tooth
  • With at least one proximal contact area with and adjacent tooth
  • Area out of the restoration´s failures in good condition
  • Patients who agree and sign the informed consent for participating in the study.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients with contraindications for regular dental treatment based on their medical history
  • Special aesthetic requirements that could not be solved by this alternative treatment
  • Xerostomia or who were taking medication that significantly decreased salivary flow
  • High caries risk
  • Psychiatric or physical diseases, that interfered with teeth hygiene.
05

Study design

Observational model
Case-control
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
32 participants (actual)
Target follow-up
10 Years
Patient registry
Yes

Groups and cohorts

  • Defective amalgam restorations

    Treatment Groups: A. Sealing of amalgam margin defects: Defective areas were acid etched with 35% phosphoric acid for 15 seconds. A resin-based sealant (Sealant, 3MESPE)was applied over the defective area. The sealant was polymerized with a photo curing unit (Curing-Light 2500, 3MESPE) for 40 seconds. Rubber dam isolation was used for this procedure. All treatments were applied by the same clinician. B. Replacement Group: The clinician totally removed and replaces the defective restoration with a new amalgam (Tytin, Kerr, Orange, USA). Rubber dam isolation was used for this procedure. All treatments were applied by the same clinician. C. Control Group: The defective restorations did not receive any treatment.

    Other: Sealing of amalgam margin defects

Interventions

  • OtherSealing of amalgam margin defects

    Comparison between sealing of amalgam margins defects, replacement and non treated groups.

  • OtherSealing of amalgam margin defects

    A.Sealing of amalgam margin defects: were acid etched with 35% phosphoric acid for 15 seconds. A resin-based sealant (Clinpro Sealant, 3MESPE) was applied over the defective area. The sealant was polymerized with a photocuring unit (Curing Light 2500, 3M ESPE) for 40 seconds. Rubber dam isolation was used for this procedure. All treatments were applied by the same clinician. B.Replacement Group: The clinician totally removed and replaces the defective restoration with a new amalgam (Tytin, Kerr Corporation, Orange, CA, USA). Rubber dam isolation was used for this procedure. All treatments were applied by the same clinician. C.Control Group: The defective restorations did not receive any treatment.

    Also known as: Use of Selant to seal amalgam margins defects

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Changes of Amalgam restorations quality according to United Stated Public Health Service (USPHS)

    Restorations Assessment: The quality of the restorations were evaluated using the modified U.S. Public Health System criteria. Two examiners assessed the restorations independently and by visual and tactile examination. All the restorations were examined at baseline and ten years after treatment. The restorations assessment was carried out by five parameters: marginal adaptation, roughness, secondary caries, marginal stain and teeth sensitivity. All three clinicians participated in calibration exercises at the beginning and before the last examination took place and the inter-examiner reliability results were Kappa=0.74 at the baseline and Kappa=0.87 at the ten year.

    Time frame: Baseline and 10 after treatment

07

Study locations

1 site
  • University of Chile
    Santiago, Region Metropolitana, Chile
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Martin J, Fernandez E, Estay J, Gordan VV, Mjor IA, Moncada G. Management of Class I and Class II Amalgam Restorations with Localized Defects: Five-Year Results. Int J Dent. 2013;2013:450260. doi: 10.1155/2013/450260. Epub 2013 Jan 28. PubMed 23431302 ↗
  • Martin J, Fernandez E, Estay J, Gordan VV, Mjor IA, Moncada G. Minimal invasive treatment for defective restorations: five-year results using sealants. Oper Dent. 2013 Mar-Apr;38(2):125-33. doi: 10.2341/12-062C. Epub 2012 Jul 11. PubMed 22788726 ↗
  • Moncada G, Angel P, Fernandez E, Alonso P, Martin J, Gordan VV. Bond strength evaluation of nanohybrid resin-based composite repair. Gen Dent. 2012 May-Jun;60(3):230-4. PubMed 22623463 ↗
  • Fernandez EM, Martin JA, Angel PA, Mjor IA, Gordan VV, Moncada GA. Survival rate of sealed, refurbished and repaired defective restorations: 4-year follow-up. Braz Dent J. 2011;22(2):134-9. doi: 10.1590/s0103-64402011000200008. PubMed 21537587 ↗
  • Moncada G, Martin J, Fernandez E, Hempel MC, Mjor IA, Gordan VV. Sealing, refurbishment and repair of Class I and Class II defective restorations: a three-year clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2009 Apr;140(4):425-32. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0191. PubMed 19339531 ↗
  • Moncada G, Fernandez E, Martin J, Arancibia C, Mjor IA, Gordan VV. Increasing the longevity of restorations by minimal intervention: a two-year clinical trial. Oper Dent. 2008 May-Jun;33(3):258-64. doi: 10.2341/07-113. PubMed 18505215 ↗
  • Moncada GC, Martin J, Fernandez E, Vildosola PG, Caamano C, Caro MJ, Mjor IA, Gordan VV. Alternative treatments for resin-based composite and amalgam restorations with marginal defects: a 12-month clinical trial. Gen Dent. 2006 Sep-Oct;54(5):314-8. PubMed 17004564 ↗
09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Mar 3, 2014, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT02075801
Lead sponsor
University of Chile
Responsible party
Gustavo Moncada (Main Investigator, University of Chile) — Principal investigator
First posted
Mar 3, 2014
Start date
Aug 2003
Primary completion
Feb 2014
Completion
Feb 2014
Last update
Mar 3, 2014

Study contacts

Gustavo Moncada, DDS
principal investigator · University of Chile

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Feb 2014. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion