Clinical Assessement of Glazed Versus Polished Lithium Disilicate Crowns in Surface Roughness and Enamel Antagonists Wear

Patient Satisfaction and Clinical Assessment of Surface Roughness and Wear of Enamel Antagonists for Polished Versus Glazed Posterior Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic Crowns

Status

UNKNOWN

Phases

Study type

Interventional

Source

ClinicalTrials.gov

Registry ID

NCT03696849

Enrollment

Registered

2018-10-05

Start date

2018-11-30

Completion date

2020-01-31

Last updated

2018-10-05

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Tooth Decay

Brief summary

It is believed that final glazing yields the most acceptable ceramic surfaces in terms of smoothness. However, since reglazing must be performed in a dental laboratory with the use of a thermal furnace, it requires multiple office visits. Repeated firings have a destructive effect on ceramic surfaces and can cause deformation. Conversely, polishing is easy and simple and can be accomplished in a single session.

Interventions

OTHERpolished emax Press

lithium disilicate glass ceramic crowns subjected to polishing only

Study design

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Intervention model

PARALLEL

Primary purpose

TREATMENT

Masking

DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

ALL

Age

18 Years to 50 Years

Healthy volunteers

Inclusion criteria

* Patients from 18-50 years old who are able to read and sign the informed consent document. * Physically and psychologically able to tolerate conventional restorative procedures. * Have no active periodontal or pulpal diseases, have teeth with good restorations. * Patients have no temporomandibular disorders. * Each participant needed a crown on either a first or second premolar or first or second molar in any arch. * Teeth selected shoud include: restorability with a crown:root ratio of at least 1:1. presence of an opposing natural tooth which was non-restored or minimally restored. the presence of two non-restored or minimally restored teeth opposing each other on the same quadrants as the crowned tooth and the opposing to serve as enamel controls. Minimally restored was defined as teeth which have no restoration greater than a Class II amalgam restoration. \- Willing to return for follow-up examinations and evaluation.

Exclusion criteria

* Patients in the growth stage with partially erupted teeth. * Patients with poor oral hygiene and motivation. * Pregnant women. * Psychiatric problems or unrealistic expectations. * Lack of opposite occluding dentition in the area intended for restoration. * Patients with temporomandibular disorders.

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame	Description
Antagonists enamel wear using profilometer	1 year	wear of enamel antagonists opposing to emaxPress crowns that will be measured in um

Secondary

Measure	Time frame	Description
Restoration surface Roughness using profilometer	1 year	restoration roughness after different finishing methods that will me measured in um
Patient satisfaction	1 year	Questionnaire

Contacts

Primary ContactMervat Rouchdy, M.D.s

mervatmourad82@gmail.com01272625020

Backup ContactLamia Khair Allah

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026