[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"leadSponsorName\":\"Murad Alrashidi\",\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:":105},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,3,0,[8,47,78],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":15,"healthyVolunteers":16,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":19,"enrollmentInfo":20,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":24,"briefSummary":26,"conditions":27,"keywords":30,"overallStatus":34,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":35,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":36,"startDateStruct":39,"completionDateStruct":41,"leadSponsor":43,"locationsCount":46},"100639363","3d-printed-versus-band-and-loop-versus-denovo-space-maintainers-in-primary-dentition-100639363",false,"NCT07613658","3D-Printed Versus Band-and-Loop Versus Denovo Space Maintainers in Primary Dentition.","3D-Printed Custom Versus Conventional Band-and-Loop Versus Chairside Denovo Space Maintainers in the Primary Dentition: A Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Children aged 5 to 10 years\n2. Premature unilateral loss of at least one primary first or second molar\n3. Radiographically confirmed developing permanent successor at Nolla developmental stage 4 to 7\n4. Parent or legal guardian able and willing to provide written informed consent, and child able to provide age-appropriate assent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Systemic disease affecting bone metabolism or tooth development\n2. Clinically significant mesiodistal space loss at screening, defined as greater than 3 mm\n3. Poor oral hygiene precluding band placement, defined as a full-mouth plaque score greater than 50%\n4. Known allergy or hypersensitivity to stainless steel or resin components\n5. Current participation in another interventional clinical trial",true,"ALL","5 Years","10 Years",{"count":21,"type":22},360,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[25],"NA","Purpose of the Study When a child loses a \"baby\" molar early due to a cavity or injury, the surrounding teeth can shift into the empty space. This often blocks the permanent adult tooth from growing in correctly. To prevent this, dentists use a small metal device called a space maintainer.\n\nThis study aims to find out which of three different types of space maintainers lasts the longest, is most comfortable for the child, and is most efficient for the dental office to provide.\n\nThe Three Study Groups\n\nChildren in this study are randomly assigned to one of three groups:\n\n1. 3D-Printed Custom Group: The dentist takes a digital picture (scan) of the child's mouth instead of a traditional mold. A custom-fit appliance is then 3D-printed using a specialized, medical-grade clear material.\n2. Conventional Band-and-Loop Group: This is the traditional method. The dentist takes a physical mold of the teeth, which is sent to a laboratory. The child usually has to return for a second appointment a week later to have the metal appliance glued into place.\n3. Denovo Chairside Group: This uses a kit of pre-made metal parts. The dentist selects the best fit and assembles the appliance right at the chairside, allowing it to be placed during a single visit.\n\nWhat is Being Measured?\n\nResearchers are following the children for 12 months to track:\n\nSurvival: Which appliance stays glued in and doesn't break most effectively?\n\nTime: How much time does the dentist spend making and fitting the appliance?\n\nComfort: How much discomfort or pain did the child feel during the process?\n\nHealth: Does the appliance cause any irritation to the gums or surrounding teeth?\n\nWho Can Participate? The study includes children between the ages of 5 and 10 who have lost at least one primary (baby) molar early and need a space maintainer to protect their future adult smile.\n\nImportance of This Research By comparing these three methods, this study helps dentists understand if newer technologies, like 3D printing or pre-made kits, are better or more convenient than the traditional lab-made metal loops used for decades. This information will help families choose the best treatment for their children.",[28,29],"Space Maintenance","Tooth Loss \u002F Rehabilitation",[28,31,32,33],"Band and Loop","3D-Printed Space Maintainer","Denovo Space Maintainer","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-05-21",{"date":37,"type":38},"2026-05-29","ACTUAL",{"date":40,"type":22},"2026-06",{"date":42,"type":22},"2027-07",{"name":44,"class":45},"Murad Alrashidi","OTHER",1,{"id":48,"slug":49,"hasResults":11,"nctId":50,"briefTitle":51,"officialTitle":52,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":53,"healthyVolunteers":16,"sex":17,"minAge":54,"maxAge":55,"enrollmentInfo":56,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":58,"briefSummary":59,"conditions":60,"keywords":64,"overallStatus":34,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":35,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":71,"startDateStruct":73,"completionDateStruct":75,"leadSponsor":77,"locationsCount":46},"100638379","luting-cements-for-prefabricated-zirconia-crown-retention-in-primary-anterior-teeth-in-children-100638379","NCT07611734","Luting Cements for Prefabricated Zirconia Crown Retention in Primary Anterior Teeth in Children","Comparison of Self-Adhesive Resin, Conventional Glass Ionomer, and Bioactive Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cements for Prefabricated Zirconia Crown Retention in Primary Anterior Teeth: A Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Healthy children aged 2 to 7 years\n2. One or more primary maxillary or mandibular incisors requiring full-coverage restoration due to caries or trauma\n3. Adequate remaining tooth structure following preparation, defined as greater than 50% of the clinical crown\n4. Parent or legal guardian able and willing to provide written informed consent and to commit to the 36-month follow-up schedule\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Active periodontal disease at the index tooth, defined as a Löe Gingival Index score of 2 or higher\n2. Parafunctional habits such as bruxism, severe thumb-sucking, or tongue-thrust documented at screening\n3. Known allergy or hypersensitivity to zirconia, resin, glass ionomer, or any component of the assigned cement\n4. Inconsistent oral hygiene, defined as less than twice-daily toothbrushing per parental report\n5. Systemic disease affecting bone metabolism, tooth development, or wound healing\n6. Current participation in another interventional dental clinical trial","2 Years","7 Years",{"count":57,"type":22},120,[25],"The goal of this clinical trial is to compare the long-term clinical performance of three different luting cements used to bond prefabricated zirconia crowns (PZCs) on primary front teeth in young children. The trial will determine whether any single cement offers superior retention, gum health, or marginal sealing compared to the others over a 3-year period.\n\nMain Questions:\n\nThe study aims to answer the following:\n\nAre conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC), bioactive resin-modified glass ionomer cement (BioCem™), and self-adhesive resin cement (SARC) equivalent in retaining prefabricated zirconia crowns on primary incisors over 36 months? Do these cements differ in their effect on gingival health, plaque accumulation, or marginal discoloration around the cemented crown?\n\nComparison:\n\nResearchers will compare three parallel groups of children whose primary incisors are restored with identical prefabricated zirconia crowns but cemented with one of the three different luting cements.\n\nParticipants will: Receive a clinical and radiographic dental examination at screening. Undergo placement of one or more prefabricated zirconia crowns on primary anterior teeth using their randomly assigned cement. Return to the clinic for blinded follow-up evaluations at 12, 24, and 36 months for assessment of crown retention, gingival health, plaque, and marginal staining.",[61,62,63],"Dental Caries","Tooth Injuries","Primary Tooth Restoration",[65,66,67,68,69,70],"Prefabricated Zirconia Crown","Luting Cement","Glass Ionomer Cement","Bioactive Cement","Self-Adhesive Resin Cement","Crown Retention",{"date":72,"type":38},"2026-05-28",{"date":74,"type":22},"2026-05",{"date":76,"type":22},"2029-07",{"name":44,"class":45},{"id":79,"slug":80,"hasResults":11,"nctId":81,"briefTitle":82,"officialTitle":83,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":84,"healthyVolunteers":16,"sex":17,"minAge":55,"maxAge":85,"enrollmentInfo":86,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":88,"briefSummary":89,"conditions":90,"keywords":94,"overallStatus":34,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":99,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":100,"startDateStruct":101,"completionDateStruct":102,"leadSponsor":104,"locationsCount":46},"100638140","teleorthodontics-versus-conventional-follow-up-during-early-interceptive-orthodontic-treatment-in-children-100638140","NCT07611227","Teleorthodontics Versus Conventional Follow-up During Early Interceptive Orthodontic Treatment in Children","Teleorthodontics Versus Conventional Follow-up in Pediatric Patients During Phase I Interceptive Orthodontic Treatment. A Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol Comparing Clinical Effectiveness and Parental Satisfaction.","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Children aged 7 to 11 years\n2. Scheduled to commence interceptive orthodontic treatment with a maxillary or mandibular Hyrax® expansion appliance\n3. In the mixed dentition stage\n4. Parent or legal guardian owns and is able to operate a compatible smartphone (iOS 14 or higher, or Android 10 or higher) capable of running the Dental Monitoring application\n5. Parent or guardian able and willing to provide written informed consent, and child able to provide assent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Craniofacial syndromes or congenital craniofacial anomalies\n2. Requirement for complex multidisciplinary management\n3. Lack of reliable internet access, defined as inability to upload photographs at least once per week\n4. Any prior orthodontic treatment\n5. Significant systemic medical conditions affecting orthodontic treatment outcomes\n6. Absence of a consistent legal guardian available to participate in the monitoring protocol","11 Years",{"count":87,"type":22},110,[25],"The goal of this clinical trial is to learn if teleorthodontic remote monitoring is as effective as traditional in-office care for children undergoing Phase I expansion therapy. It will also evaluate whether this technology can safely reduce the frequency of unscheduled emergency appointments.\n\nMain Questions\n\nThe study aims to answer the following:\n\n1. Is remote monitoring non-inferior to conventional care in improving dental alignment, as measured by the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index?\n2. Does the use of weekly smartphone-based photo check-ins significantly lower the number of unscheduled emergency visits?\n3. How does remote monitoring impact appliance compliance, parental satisfaction, and the child's level of distress during treatment?\n\nComparison\n\nResearchers will compare a teleorthodontics group-which uses weekly smartphone photography and clinic visits every 8 weeks-to a conventional group receiving standard in-person follow-ups every 4 weeks.\n\nParticipant Activities\n\nParticipants will:\n\n1. Commence Phase I treatment using a maxillary or mandibular expansion appliance.\n2. If assigned to the teleorthodontics group, capture a standardized set of five intraoral photographs weekly via a dedicated smartphone application.\n3. Attend scheduled in-office checkups every 4 or 8 weeks, depending on their assigned group.\n4. Maintain a daily diary to record appliance activations and report on their treatment experience.",[91,92,93],"Teledentistry","Orthodontics, Interceptive","Palatal Expansion Technique",[95,96,97,98],"Phase I Orthodontic Treatment","Interceptive Orthodontics","Hyrax Appliance","Teleorthodontics","2026-05-20",{"date":72,"type":38},{"date":74,"type":22},{"date":103,"type":22},"2027-05",{"name":44,"class":45},""]