Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Not yet recruiting

NCT Number: NCT07803757

Glass Ionomer Restorations With SMART Versus Conventional Treatment in Elderly Cancer Patients

This study will evaluate the clinical performance of glass ionomer cervical restorations placed using the Silver-Modified Atraumatic Restorative Technique (SMART) compared with conventional restorative treatment in elderly cancer patients with cervical carious lesions. The trial is a 12-month randomized clinical trial with four parallel arms and a 1:1 allocation ratio. Two SMART arms will receive 38% silver diamine fluoride (SDF) and potassium iodide followed by either high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (HVGIC) or resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), while the conventional arms will receive standard tooth preparation followed by HVGIC or RMGIC without SDF. The primary outcome is retention of the restoration, assessed using USPHS criteria. Secondary outcomes include postoperative hypersensitivity, marginal integrity, recurrent caries, average duration of treatment, anatomic form, color match, surface roughness, marginal discoloration, and patient satisfaction (VAS). Patients will be followed at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. The study aims to determine whether the minimally invasive SMART approach offers comparable clinical performance to conventional treatment while reducing chair time and discomfort in a medically vulnerable elderly cancer population.

Not yet recruiting

Trial opening soon.

Get Notified

Key information

Age range

35 year–55 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

About this study

Adult cancer patients (35-55 years) with primary cervical carious lesions will be recruited from the outpatient clinics of the Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University. Eligible teeth must be vital by pulp sensitivity testing with controlled periodontal conditions; teeth with previous restorations, irreversible pulpitis signs, mobility, resorption, or cuspal loss will be excluded, as will patients with material allergies, fixed orthodontic appliances, pregnancy, or frequent analgesic use that could mask pain. After signing informed consent, participants will be randomized 1:1 using a computer-generated sequence (random.org) with allocation concealed via sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. The study is double-blinded (participants and outcome assessors blinded; the treating operator is not blinded). Baseline data collection includes medical/dental history and pre-operative radiographs. Interventions will be applied by a single trained operator following standardized protocols for SDF/GIC placement (SMART arms) or conventional cavity preparation and GIC placement (control arms). Data will be collected on paper/Excel and analyzed using MedCalc software (v22) with Chi-square, Cochran's Q, one-way ANOVA/Tukey post-hoc, and repeated-measures ANOVA/Bonferroni-corrected comparisons, with significance set at p≤0.05 and 80% power. Sample size (29 teeth/group) was calculated using G*Power based on prior HVGIC retention data. The trial is self-funded, with independent auditing conducted by the co-supervisor.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Patient-related criteria:
  • Adult cancer patients of both genders, aged 35-55 years
  • Good oral hygiene
  • Willing to sign the informed consent
  • Co-operative patients who accept the follow-up period

Tooth-related criteria:

  • Teeth with primary root surface caries (active dentin carious lesions, Nyvad score 2 or 3)
  • Teeth with gum recession
  • Teeth vital according to pulp sensitivity tests
  • Controlled gingival or periodontal conditions

Exclusion criteria

  • Patient-related criteria:
  • Allergy to any of the restorative materials
  • Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances
  • Pregnant women
  • Patients who frequently use analgesics or any drugs that could mask pain

Tooth-related criteria:

  • Teeth with previous restorations
  • Spontaneous or prolonged pain (more than 15 seconds) after cold test, indicating irreversible pulpitis
  • Negative sensibility test, periapical radiolucency, or sensitivity to percussion
  • Mobile teeth indicating periodontal disease or trauma
  • External or internal resorption
  • Chipped teeth or cuspal loss

Treatment and study plan

Silver Diamine Fluoride (SDF, 38%)

Other

38% Silver Diamine Fluoride applied to the carious lesion using a micro brush for one minute, followed by application of potassium iodide (KI) in esthetically sensitive areas to reduce black staining, prior to restoration. Used in the two SMART arms only, with no mechanical removal of carious dentin.

Conventional Tooth Preparation

Procedure

Conventional mechanical excavation of carious dentin using sharp hand instruments and round steel burs in a slow-speed handpiece, followed by cavity conditioning with 10% polyacrylic acid, rinsing, and drying, prior to restoration. No SDF is applied in this procedure.

High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer Cement

Other

High-viscosity glass ionomer restorative cement placed and light-cured according to tooth location, following either SDF application (SMART arm) or conventional mechanical tooth preparation (control arm).

Other names: Riva Light Cure, HVGIC

Resin-modified glass ionomer cement

Other

Resin-modified glass ionomer restorative cement placed following either SDF application (SMART arm) or conventional mechanical tooth preparation (control arm).

Other names: Riva Self Cure, RMGIC

Primary outcomes

  1. Retention of Restoration

    Time frame: Baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months

    Evaluation of the presence and integrity of the restoration over the follow-up period, assessed using USPHS criteria (Zhao et al., 2018): Alpha (A) - restoration present; Bravo (B) - partial loss, clinically acceptable; Charlie (C) - clinically unacceptable partial/total loss; Delta (D) - immediate replacement necessary.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Postoperative Hypersensitivity

    Time frame: Baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months

    Assessment of patient-reported sensitivity following restoration placement, evaluated using USPHS criteria (Zhao et al., 2018): Alpha (A) - no hypersensitivity; Bravo (B) - mild hypersensitivity; Charlie (C) - moderate hypersensitivity; Delta (D) - severe hypersensitivity.

  2. Marginal Integrity

    Time frame: Baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months

    Description: Evaluation of the continuity and adaptation at the restoration margins, assessed using USPHS criteria (Zhao et al., 2018): Alpha (A) - continuity at the margin; Bravo (B) - slight discontinuity at the margin; Charlie (C) - marginal defects requiring replacement.

  3. Recurrent Caries

    Time frame: Baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months

    Detection of caries adjacent to restoration margins, assessed using USPHS criteria (Zhao et al., 2018): Alpha (A) - caries absent; Charlie (C) - caries present.

  4. Average Duration of Treatment

    Time frame: perioperatively

    Time required to complete the restorative procedure, measured in seconds using a stopwatch (Caro et al., 2012).

  5. Anatomic Form

    Time frame: Baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months

    Assessment of whether the restoration correctly mimics the natural contours, height, and functional shape of the original tooth, using USPHS criteria (Zhao et al., 2018): Alpha - restoration continuous with existing anatomic form; Bravo - continuous but not exposing cement or dentin; Charlie - sufficient material lost to expose cement material or dentin.

  6. Color Match

    Time frame: Baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months

    Measures how well the shade of the restorative material blends with the neighboring natural tooth structure, using USPHS criteria (Zhao et al., 2018): Alpha - no mismatch; Bravo - mismatch within normal range of color, shade, and translucency; Charlie - mismatch outside normal range.

  7. Surface Roughness and Marginal Discoloration

    Time frame: Baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months

    Combined assessment of restoration surface smoothness and marginal staining using USPHS criteria (Zhao et al., 2018): Surface roughness scored Alpha (smooth) to Charlie (rough, cannot be refinished); marginal discoloration scored Alpha (none) to Charlie (discoloration penetrated in pulpal direction).

  8. Patient Satisfaction

    Time frame: Immediately after the intervention, and at 3, 6, and 12 months

    Patient-reported satisfaction with treatment, measured using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) from 0 (unsatisfied) to 10 (totally satisfied), where the patient marks a vertical line across the scale and the distance in millimeters from the zero end is measured (Golpak, 2020).

Study contacts

Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.

Rawda Abd ElAziz Hesham Abd ElAziz

CONTACT

[email protected]

marwa ashraf husseiny, Master's candidate

CONTACT

[email protected]

+201061388709

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Cairo University

Other

Registry information

Official study title

Clinical Performance of Glass Ionomer Cervical Restorations With Silver-Modified Atraumatic Restorative Technique (SMART) Versus Conventional Treatment for Elderly Cancer Patients: A 12-Month Randomized Clinical Trial

Important dates

Study start
2027
Primary completion
2027
Study completion
2028
First posted
Sep 4, 2026
Registry last updated
Sep 4, 2026

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.