Badly Decayed Molars
Conditions
Brief summary
The digital workflow in dentistry has proven in the past decades to be a time-efficient, multifunctional, effortless, and accessible approach. The inherited shortages milling machines represented by the incapability to produce accurate complex hollow structures may give preference to modern 3D ceramic printing. Computer-aided-design/computer-aided-manufacturing (CAD/CAM) in dentistry is a digital subtractive approach for manufacturing indirect restorations. Nevertheless, waste materials and milling burs wearing are considered as key disadvantages of CAD/CAM technology, and are the main drive to improve 3D printing technology (additive manufacturing) as the latter has shown considerable efficiency in minimising wasted materials. Although additive manufacturing has been known since the 1980s, its application in dentistry is relatively new and not fully studied with limited research and in vivo studies on their clinical performance.
Interventions
OTHERCAD/Cam milled onlays
The digital workflow in dentistry has proven in the past decades to be a time-efficient, multifunctional, effortless, and accessible approach. The inherited shortages milling machines represented by the incapability to produce accurate complex hollow structures may give preference to modern 3D ceramic printing. Computer-aided-design/computer-aided-manufacturing (CAD/CAM) in dentistry is a digital subtractive approach for manufacturing indirect restorations. Nevertheless, waste materials and milling burs wearing are considered as key disadvantages of CAD/CAM technology, and are the main drive to improve 3D printing technology (additive manufacturing) as the latter has shown considerable efficiency in minimising wasted materials.
OTHER3D printed onlays
3D printing technologies are developing more intensively in dentistry as this technology has the capacity to produce shapes or models with high accuracy and in a short time. This method of fabrication takes less time and money and saves on materials compared to CAD/CAM. Although it seems that digital manufacturing technology has made great changes in the restorative dentistry field, this technology is still not fully in use. This is possibly because of the lack of studies and research on this technology, particularly in terms of clinical performance and patient-centred outcomes. 3D printing technologies are novel technologies with a lack of research; therefore, the processing of 3D printing materials is still controversial.
Sponsors
Cairo University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
25 Years to 45 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
Age: 25-45 years. * Males or females. * Participants with carious vital ower molars indicated for onlay (one or two missing cusps) * Patients with at least 20 teeth under occlusion. * Good oral hygiene. * Co-operative patients approving to participate in the trial. * Have sufficient cognitive ability to understand consent procedures.
Exclusion criteria
* Participants with parafunctional habits or bruxism. * Participants with systemic diseases or disabilities that may affect participation. * Heavy smoking. * Pregnancy. * Lack of compliance. * Severe or active periodontal disease. * Cognitive impairment.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Fracture | One Year | This outcome will be measured using modified USPH criteria for clinical evaluation of restoration failure where they are given scores Alpha is excellent , Bravo is acceptable, Charlie is not accepted |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Secondary caries | One Year | This outcome will be measured using modified USPH criteria for clinical evaluation of restoration failure where they are given scores Alpha is excellent , Bravo is acceptable, Charlie is not accepted |
| Retention | One Year | This outcome will be measured using modified USPH criteria for clinical evaluation of restoration failure where they are given scores Alpha is excellent , Bravo is acceptable, Charlie is not accepted |
| Marginal adaptation | One Year | This outcome will be measured using modified USPH criteria for clinical evaluation of restoration failure where they are given scores Alpha is excellent , Bravo is acceptable, Charlie is not accepted |
| Marginal discoloration | One Year | This outcome will be measured using modified USPH criteria for clinical evaluation of restoration failure where they are given scores Alpha is excellent , Bravo is acceptable, Charlie is not accepted |
| Surface texture | One Year | This outcome will be measured using modified USPH criteria for clinical evaluation of restoration failure where they are given scores Alpha is excellent , Bravo is acceptable, Charlie is not accepted |
| Anatomic form | One Year | This outcome will be measured using modified USPH criteria for clinical evaluation of restoration failure where they are given scores Alpha is excellent , Bravo is acceptable, Charlie is not accepted |
| Post-operative hypersensitivity | One Year | This outcome will be measured using modified USPH criteria for clinical evaluation of restoration failure where they are given scores Alpha is excellent , Bravo is acceptable, Charlie is not accepted |
Contacts
Primary ContactNada Sameh assistant lecturer
Outcome results
None listed