Clinical evaluation of monolithic Zirconia (5Y), Lithium Disilicate and modified PEEK CAD-CAM endocrown materials,3-year clinical prospective study | ||
| Egyptian Dental Journal | ||
| Article 15, Volume 67, Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Materials), January 2021, Pages 635-650 PDF (643.02 K) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/edj.2020.37997.1193 | ||
| Author | ||
| raafat tammam* | ||
| Professor and Consultant of Fixed Prosthodontics, Implantology and Cosmotic Dentistry, Faculty pf Dentistry, Assiut University, Egypt. | ||
| Abstract | ||
| objective. to conclude clinically, if endocrowns are a dependable substitute to post-retained restorations for significantly broken endodontically treated teeth and which restorative materials are proficient customized for constructing endocrowns. Material and methods. The clinical study is an open label, parallel groups conducted randomly at Assiut University Dental Hospital. The trial involved a total of 40 patients. After providing signed informed consent, patients are enrolled and classified into three groups according to random number of the type of material (lithium disilicate, monolithic zirconia and modified PEEK material). Therapy distribution will be equalized (1:1:1). Endocrowns will be bonded by adhesive dual-cured luting resin composite. Medical assessments will be accomplished at zero, 6-M,12-M,18-M,24-M,30-M and at 36 months following handling according to modified US Public Health Service criteria with dual self-sufficient assessors. The criteria will be evaluated are the Marginal fit, Marginal discoloration, Anatomic contour, Surface texture, Color match). Entirely obtained data will be desperctively investigated and survival probabilities were calculated by indicated statistics by an independent statistician. Results: Afterward, an examination period of 3 years, endurance ratios were 94.87 %. one restoration replaced due to clinically improper failure and another after debonding rebonding again.Finally, the best material was lithium disilicate, translucent zirconia, and PEEK material respectively. Conclusions: Clinical relevance of translucent zirconia, lithium disilicate ceramic and modified PEEK materials are a proper restorative management choice for molar endocrown. But scheduled clinical longstanding documents should be scheduled. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| clinical endocrown; monolithic zirconia; lithium disilicate; PEEK materials; CAD-CAM | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 911 PDF Download: 1,304 |
||
