One Year Clinical Evaluation of E-max CAD and Lava Ultimate Laminate Veneers

Cairo University16 enrolled

Overview

Restoration of anterior teeth using conservative approach allows clinicians to provide porcelain laminate veneers with excellent esthetics without extensive tooth structure removal. laminate veneers need the use of etch-able ceramics like glass ceramics (E.max) and hybrid ceramics (Lava Ultimate). The aim of this study is to compare both e.max and lava ultimate veneers clinically.

The use of E-max CAD well documented in the literatures as successful restoration modality which has superior optical and mechanical properties. The introduction of hybrid ceramic materials combined the advantages of both glass ceramics and composite resin. Resin nano-ceramic is a mixture of a resin composite matrix and nano-ceramic fillers of approximately 80% by weight. The main advantages of this material over the glass ceramics are the stress absorbing action or stress distribution by having modulus of elasticity near to the tooth dentin and can be individualized intra-orally or extra-orally, either before or after definitive cementation. Yet there are no studies for clinical evaluation of both mentioned laminate veneers restorations. This study is conducted to compare between both materials clinically according to modified USPHS criteria in terms of marginal adaptation, fracture, debonding, marginal discoloration and patient satisfaction.

Study Type

INTERVENTIONAL

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Purpose

TREATMENT

Masking

DOUBLE

Enrollment

Conditions

Discoloration, Tooth

Interventions

lava ultimateOTHER

resin nano ceramic material

E.max cadOTHER

Lithium disilicate glass ceramic

Eligibility

Sex: ALLMin age: 18 YearsMax age: 50 YearsHealthy volunteers:

Medical Language ↔ Plain English

Inclusion Criteria: 1. From 18-50 years old, be able to read and sign the informed consent document. 2. Be physically and psychologically able to tolerate conventional restorative procedures. 3. Have no active periodontal or pulpal diseases, have teeth with good restorations. 4. Patients with teeth problems indicated for laminate veneer (e.g. discoloration, defect not involve more than 60% enamel loss, mild malposition, anterior upper….). 5. Be willing to return for follow-up examinations and evaluation. Exclusion Criteria: 1. Patients in the growth stage with partially erupted teeth. 2. Patient with fractured teeth of more than 60% enamel loss. 3. Patients with poor oral hygiene and motivation. 4. Pregnant women. 5. Psychiatric problems or unrealistic expectations. 6. Lack of opposite occluding dentition in the area intended for restoration.

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

Patient satisfaction evaluated by using a questionnaire

Patient satisfaction will be evaluated by using a questionnaire, which will be translated. A validation of the Arabic translation will be done before using the questionnaire in the trial. Each participant will take the questionnaire into a quiet room and will be left alone until questionnaire is totally answered.

Time frame: one year

Secondary Outcomes

Modified USPHS criteria

It is a criteria for clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials in terms of marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, fracture, debonding.

Time frame: one year

Central Contacts

mai elgendi, B.D.S

CONTACT

201126811001 mai.eltohami@dentistry.cu.edu.eg

kareem abo bakr, PHD

CONTACT

Data from ClinicalTrials.gov

This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.