Decayed Teeth, Endodontically Treated Teeth, Single Posterior Crowns
Conditions
Brief summary
It has been demonstrated that a great amount of tooth structure is lost during the prosthetic preparations of abutments for full-coverage FDPs with tooth substance removal of 63% of 73%, this aggressive loss of tooth structure usually accompanied with pain and post-operative sensitivity. In comparison with the vertical preparation technique, there is less amount of tooth substance loss. this clinical study will provide benefits for practitioners and clinicians by guiding them to choose a more conservative treatment plan with the better marginal fit, clinical performance and satisfaction for the patients on the long term. rather than other benefits like less chair time, less risk for pulp injury, less time and cost
Detailed description
A healthy relationship between dental restorations and the periodontium is of prime importance for the clinical longevity and esthetic harmony of full coverage restorations . One of the Most Common complications, derived from fixed prostheses is gingival recession, which constitutes an important clinical concern. This problem is largely associated with iatrogenic effects produced during dental preparation or as a result of poor prosthetic fit which can cause chronic inflammation leading to gingival margin recession around the restoration .
Interventions
OTHERmonolithic zirconia single posterior crowns with deep chamfer finish line
deep chamfer of 1 mm average thickness for cervical finish line, a convergence angle of 6-12° on each side and up to 20° total, in some studies, is acceptable and occlusal reduction of 1,5-2 mm
OTHERmonolithic zirconia single posterior crowns with vertical finish line
using special round-ended 2 degrees tapered diamond burs a non-working tip (batt bur). It has coronal diameter of 1.2 mm, apical diameter of 0.7 mm, and non- cutting end of 1 mm, which reduces or avoids damage to the connective attachment and allows a tooth-guided preparation procedure
Sponsors
Cairo University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)
Masking description
double blind
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
20 Years to 40 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
1. The patients in this study will be in the range of 18-50 years 2. Have no active periodontal or pulpal diseases, have teeth with good restorations 3. Psychologically and physically able to withstand conventional dental procedures 4. Able to return for follow-up examinations and evaluation 5. No tooth mobility or grade 1 can be accepted 6. Patients with teeth problems indicated for single posterior crowns: 1. Badly decayed teeth 2. Teeth restored with large filling restorations 3. Endodontically treated teeth 4. Malformed teeth 5. Malposed teeth (Tilted, over-erupted, rotated, etc.) 6. Spacing between posterior teeth
Exclusion criteria
1. Patients under the age of 18 or being incapable of taking out a contract 2. Patient with active resistant periodontal diseases 3. Patients with any medical condition that impaired correct oral hygiene 4. a conspicuous medical or psychological history 5. bruxism, or known allergic reaction to the materials used. 6. pregnant female patients
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Marginal adaptation | 1 year | Assessed using the modified usphs criteria by Discrete (scores) Alpha (A) No visible evidences of crevice along the margins; no catch or penetration of the explorer. Bravo (B) Visible evidence of crevice and/or catch of explorer; no penetration of the explorer. Charlie (C) Visible evidence of crevice and penetration of the explorer. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Fracture of the restoration | 1 year | Assessed using the modified usphs criteria by Discrete (scores) Alpha (A) Smooth surface of the restoration (shiny after air drying) Bravo (B) Dull surface and/or chipping of porcelain that does not impair function Charlie (C) Chipping of veneering material impairing esthetics and function and/or exposing framework material |
| gingival inflammation | 1 year | Assessed using the modified usphs criteria by Discrete (scores) Alpha (A) Normal gingiva Bravo (B) Mild inflammation - slight change in color and slight edema but no bleeding on probing; Charlie (C) Moderate inflammation redness, edema, and glazing, bleeding on probing; |
| Recurrent caries | 1 year | Assessed using the modified usphs criteria by Discrete (scores) Alpha (A) No caries present Bravo (B) Caries present |
Other
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Patient satisfaction | 1 year | VAS (Questionnaire) by Numerical (discrete) (0 unsatisfied - 10 satisfied) |
Countries
Egypt
Outcome results
None listed