Endocrown Restoration
Conditions
Keywords
Hybrid ceramics, cerasmart, HC hard blocks
Brief summary
The goal of this study is to evaluate the clinical success rate (measured by retention) of endo-crowns fabricated from two hybrid ceramic materials (HC Hard blocks ) versus (Cerasmart) at 6, 12, and 18 months. Secondary Objectives are: 1. To compare the incidence of restoration failures between the two materials 2. To assess marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration over time 3. To evaluate wear of opposing enamel quantitatively 4. To compare surface texture, color match, and luster between materials 5. To determine patient satisfaction with both types of restorations It will be a randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trial with 1:1 allocation ratio.
Interventions
PROCEDUREendocrowns
endocrowns made of HC hard blocks or cerasmart blocks to restore endo treated molars
Sponsors
Cairo University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)
Intervention model description
Randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trial with 1:1 allocation ratio.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
21 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
1. Age ≥21 years 2. Good general health (ASA I or II) 3. Willing and able to provide informed consent 4. Committed to follow-up appointments for 18 months 5. Root canal treated molars requiring restoration 6. Adequate remaining tooth structure: * Minimum 2mm ferrule height * Sufficient wall thickness (≥1.5mm) * At least 2 remaining walls 7. Opposing natural dentition or fixed prosthesis 8. Adequate periodontal health: * Probing depth ≤4mm * No bleeding on probing 9. Good oral hygiene with plaque score ≤20% 10. Sufficient mouth opening for clinical procedures 11. Normal occlusion and acceptable interocclusal space
Exclusion criteria
1. Pregnant or lactating women 2. Severe bruxism or parafunctional habits 3. Active periodontal disease 4. Active caries or inadequate oral hygiene 5. Less than 2mm ferrule height after preparation 6. Apical pathology or inadequate root canal treatment 7. Tooth mobility grade II or III 8. Known allergy to materials used 9. Uncontrolled diabetes (HbA1c \>7.0%) 10. Radiation therapy in head and neck region 11. Temporomandibular joint disorders 12. History of poor compliance with dental appointments 13. Heavy smokers (\>10 cigarettes/day) 14. Chronic use of medications affecting salivary flow 15. Unable to understand study requirements 16. Evidence of pulpal or periapical pathology
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Retention | From cementation of endocrown, then at 6 months, 12 months and 18 months | Modified USPHS criteria |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Marginal Adaptation | From cementation of endocrown, then at 6 months, 12 months and 18 months | Modified USPHS criteria |
| Wear of Opposing Enamel | From cementation of endocrown, then at 6 months, 12 months and 18 months | Digital software (Geomagic) |
| Surface Texture | From cementation of endocrown, then at 6 months, 12 months and 18 months | Modified USPHS criteria |
| Restoration Failure | From cementation of endocrown, then at 6 months, 12 months and 18 months | Modified USPHS criteria |
| Luster of Restoration | From cementation, then at 6 months, 12 months and 18 months | Modified USPHS criteria |
| Patient Satisfaction | From cementation, then at 6 months, 12 months and 18 months | VAS (Questionnaire) |
| Color Match | From cementation of endocrown, then at 6 months, 12 months and 18 months | Modified USPHS criteria |
Countries
Egypt
Contacts
Primary ContactNada Farid Nada Farid Shehab, PhD
Backup ContactOmnia Omnia Nabil, Lecturer Fixed Prosthodontics
Outcome results
None listed