Dental Implant, Dental Restoration
Conditions
Keywords
implant-supported, patient-reported outcome,, technical, biological outcomes, survival/success rate, single-tooth restorations
Brief summary
To compare biological, technical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes of two types of monolithic zirconia crowns screw-retained to implant. To assess whether the new form of multilayered zirconia crowns will show similar survival and success rate to conventional monolithic Zirconia screw-retained to implants in molar and premolar regions. First Null Hypothesis: Multilayered monolithic zirconia crowns would have similar survival, success rate compared to conventional monolithic zirconia implant supported crowns. Second Null hypothesis: There would be no difference in clinical and patients related outcomes between multilayered and conventional monolithic zirconia implant supported crowns.
Detailed description
Study design: A short-randomized controlled trial study, the (PICO) study design: population will be patients from Jordan University Hospital with implants planned for single screw-retained zirconia crowns in the posterior site (premolar or molar), intervention will be the multilayer monolithic screw-retained zirconia crowns over implants, the comparator is the conventional monolithic zirconia crowns over implants, and the main outcomes will be the prosthetic/technical outcomes, survival and success rates in addition to radiographic, patient-reported outcomes, and biological parameters. Methodology The patients who fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria and entered the study will have a fully digital workflow starting from data acquisition using an intraoral scanner (3Shape TRIOS® 5) , Ti-base abutment design and CAD/CAM milling of the two types of monolithic zirconia blanks (IPS e.max® ZirCAD Prime and IPS e.max® ZirCAD LT). The fabricated zirconia crowns in both groups will have the same treatment and will be cemented to the Ti-base abutment according to the (APC) concept; alumina airborne-particle abrasion 50-μm at 1 bar for 15-20 seconds, intaglio surface primed using MDP for 60 seconds and air blown for 5 seconds, and finally cemented to the abutment by phosphate monomer resin cement PANAVIA™ V5(Blatz-Alvarez-Compendium-APC-2016, n.d.). On the other hand, the Ti-base abutment: height will be standardized at 4mm, and the base abutment surface will have blasting with alumina particles of 50 μm at 2-bar pressure for 15-20 seconds at a 10-mm step-over distance at an angle of 45 degrees.
Interventions
OTHERGraded Zirconia Crown
monolithic implant supported crown
OTHERConventional Zirconia Crown
monolithic implant supported crown
Sponsors
University of Jordan
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
TRIPLE (Subject, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 60 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Partially edentulous area with suitable restorative space more than 5.5 mm * At least 18 years of age * Opposing natural teeth or fixed restorations supported by teeth or implants. * Generally good health (ASA I, ASA II) * Participant complies with good oral hygiene practices (BOP and PI less than 20%) * Healthy integrated implant/s without signs of periimplantitis in the posterior site planned for single tooth replacement (in premolar or molar areas) * Patients received bone-level implants, RC Straumann Implants.
Exclusion criteria
* Inability to provide consent. * Temporomandibular disorders * Smoking of more than 10 cigarettes per day * Untreated caries or periodontal disease of remaining dentition
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Technical & Biological Outcomes | Baseline, 6 months, 12 months | The abutments and restoration will be evaluated clinically by two blinded investigators, according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria USPHS criteria involve four Scales: Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta The criteria of evaluation include: Restoration fracture, Abutment Fracture, Loosening of the restoration, Screw-access hole restoration, Occlusal Wear, Anatomical Form, Color match, Proximal contact, Occlusal Contact, Marginal Fit, Periodontal parameters. |
| Survival and Success rate | 6 months, 12 months | All patients will be evaluated for success and survival of restorations at 6 months and 1 year after placement of the restorations (Follow-ups). The success rate is defined as the number of restorations that did not change over time. The survival rate is defined as the number of restorations that did not require replacement. |
| Patient reported outcomes | 6 months, 12 months | Patient satisfaction in terms of the shape and shade of the crown, their ability to chew (function) and floss (proximal contact) and their overall satisfaction with the restoration provided will be assessed by a questionnaire based on a five-grade ordinal category scale (extremely satisfied, satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied and extremely dissatisfied). Each patient was asked to fill out the questionnaire themselves to ensure as little bias as possible. |
Countries
Jordan
Contacts
Primary ContactSusan Hattar, Professor
Outcome results
None listed