Composite Restoration, Dental Veneers, Orofacial Esthetic Scale, Resin Cements
Conditions
Keywords
Orofacial Esthetic Scale, Dental veneers, Direct composite restorations, Patient satisfaction, Resin cements
Brief summary
AIM: To determine the most effective cementation method and resin cement material for long term success of esthetical restorations TASKS: 1. Compare Panavia Veneer LC (Kuraray Noritake) cement with universal Panavia V5 (Kuraray Noritake) cement for porcelain veneer cementation in terms of marginal defects and discolouration; 2. Evaluating direct vs indirect restorations after 1-year and 3-year follow up periods in terms of patient satisfaction (evaluated by OES scale). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Participants: Patients attending the Department of Prosthodontics at the RSU Institute of Stomatology, and willing to improve the aesthetics of front teeth with porcelain veneers. Approx. 30 patients. Inclusion criteria: healthy periodontium, needs 4 veneers, stable occlusion. Exclusion criteria: heavy bruxism, poor oral hygiene, active periodontal inflammation. Veneer preparations will be done for maxillary anterior teeth approximately 0.5mm deep, involving the whole facial surface and keeping enamel around all borders. For digital impressions of preparations intra-oral scans with intraoral scanner (3Shape TRIOS 5 WIRELESS, Denmark) will be taken. Veneers will be fabricated according to the CAD/CAM technique. This will be a prospective paired design study, i.e., two different composite cements (Panavia V5 and Panavia Veneer LC) will be used for each patient, cementing two veneers with each of the cements. Data on following variables will be collected: 1. Restoration condition (defects related to restoration - ceramic fractures, cracks, loss of retention, discolouration); 2. Condition of the abutment teeth (secondary caries, endodontic complications); 3. Periodontal condition (probing depth, bleeding on probing, gum recessions); 4. Patient satisfaction questionnaire (OES).
Interventions
PROCEDUREPorcelain veneers
Teeth preparation, laboratory made porcelain restoration cementation with 2 different cements
PROCEDUREDirect composite
Digital modelling of teeth shapes, restoration with injectable composite directly
Sponsors
Riga Stradins University
Malmö University
Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc.
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* healthy periodontium, needs at least 4 veneers, enamel around all veneer borders
Exclusion criteria
* heavy bruxism, poor oral hygiene, active periodontal disease
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Patient satisfaction with porcelain veneers vs direct composite restorations using OES (orofacial aesthetic scale) | 6 months, 1 year, 3 years | OES is a questionnaire with 8 questions regarding orofacial appearance. The higher the score, the more satisfied the patient is. 7 questions evaluate specific items, and number 8 is an overall assessment. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Comparison of 2 veneer cements in terms of complications and discolouration | 6 months, 1 year, 3 years | Data on following variables will be collected for all abutment teeth: Restoration condition (defects related to restoration - ceramic fractures, cracks, loss of retention, discolouration; if present, calculated as a percentage from total restorations); Condition of the abutment teeth (secondary caries, endodontic complications; if present, calculated as a percentage from total restorations); Periodontal condition (probing depth in mm, bleeding on probing present or no; gum recessions in mm); |
Countries
Latvia
Contacts
CONTACTMara Gaile, DDS
CONTACTUna Soboleva, Professor
STUDY_DIRECTORChristel Larsson, Professor
Malmo University
STUDY_DIRECTORUna Soboleva, Professor
Riga Stradins University
Outcome results
None listed