Tooth Diseases
Conditions
Keywords
Ceramic, Resin Bloc, Endocrown , Root Canal Treatment, Molar
Brief summary
Compare the comfort and durability of Ceramic (VITA,Suprinity ,VS) vs Resin Bloc (VOCO, Grandio Bloc,GB) Endocrown by chairside CAD/CAM system (computer aided design / manufacture). Objective:To provide information of material selection for the chair-side restoration of the teeth after root canal treatment.
Detailed description
Pulpal and periapical diseases are the main causes of tooth loss. Root canal treatment (RCT) is the only effective way to treat these diseases. However, failure of RCT is commonly seen without coronal restoration.Endocrown is a new type of onlay with a retainer in the pulp cavity which consists of a cervical margin in the form of a butt joint and a preparation of the pulp chamber.This restoration method is not only good at the preservation of residual tooth tissue, but also suitable for severely damaged molars or premolars after dental pulp treatment.More and more endondontist tend to use this ways because they are a minimally invasive solution in such cases.Endocrown is mainly made of glass-ceramics, which has the advantages of beautiful appearance, high hardness and good biocompatibility. However, ceramic materials are brittle and fracturable, and need to be sintered twice in the manufacturing process, which is relatively complex and time-consuming. Composite resin block material is a new type of composite material developed in recent years. It is used for chairside CAD/CAM restoration,It has beautiful and natural color, and its elastic modulus is close to dentin. Therefore, it is more compatible with natural teeth in performance.Moreover, In the process of making, the steps of secondary sintering and glazing are omitted and shortened. But, there was no sufficient data to verify which material was more effective. The main aim of this trial is to compare the clinical efficacy of ceramic vs resin-based bloc endocrown. Other objectives include looking for the prognostic and influence factors of the related effects.
Interventions
DEVICEResin blocs (Grandio Blocs, VOCO)
composite-base bloc (Grandio Blocs, VOCO)
DEVICECeramic (Suprinity, VITA)
glass ceramic zirconia enhanced lithium silicate glass ceramics (Suprinity, VITA)
Sponsors
Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 75 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
1. The patient is healthy and is 18-75 years old and has molar teeth and tooth root apex without evident damage and no root fracture, as determined by x-ray. 2. The patient has three or four walls of intact tooth tissue after root canal treatment 3. The patient has good oral hygiene. 4. The patient has signed an informed consent form. 5. The patient is not participating in any other clinical trial. 6. The patient has received a class A assessment according to FDI criteria for marginal adaptation after restoration.
Exclusion criteria
1. Obvious destruction of the apical tissue or presence of large cysts or both 2. Severe periodontitis 3. Oral malignant tumor(s) 4. Undergoing radiotherapy 5. Pregnancy 6. Mental illness or systemic diseases 7. Incapable of self-care 8. Unsuitable for the trial as deemed by the researchers
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Marginal Adaptation | 2 years | FDI criteria for dental restorations assessment（2010） This criteria is composed of three dimensions (biological, functional and esthetic), each consisting of several items that are assessed by clinical and radiographic examination according to Likert scales of 5 terms. Some items are evaluated quantitatively, others visually.The worst score of all items is retained as The overall score of the restoration, thus resulting in a single (ordinal) primary outcome. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Fracture of material and retention： | 2 years | Clinical evaluations were performed at baseline and 24 months according to FDI criteria by 2 independent evaluators. A: Intact; B: Crack apparent on transillumination; C: Fracture observable; D: Endocrown lost (state at which interface debond occurred). |
| wear | 2 years | Clinical evaluations were performed at baseline and 24 months according to FDI criteria by 2 independent evaluators. |
| Recurrence of caries | 2 years | Clinical evaluations were performed at baseline and 24 months according to FDI criteria by 2 independent evaluators. |
Countries
China
Contacts
Primary ContactWenjuan Yan, PHD
Backup ContactBuling Wu, PHD
Outcome results
None listed