This is a randomized, prospective clinical trial. The aim of the project is to assess the clinical performance of three types of tooth-supported crowns; monolithic high translucent colored zirconia, crowns of high-translucent colored zirconia with a mini-veneer buccally and crowns of lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic. Crowns will be placed on posterior teeth and evaluated from an esthetic and functional point of view, to identify if there are any differences between the materials.
90 monolithic tooth-supported crowns are planned to be included in the study; 30 crowns of high translucent zirconia (BruxZir, Glidewell), 30 crowns of high translucent zirconia (BruxZir, Glidewell) with a mini-veneer of porcelain and 30 crowns of lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic (IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein). Patients with indications for single crowns will be recruited from three general dental clinics. Inclusion criteria for participating in this study are patients in need of crowns in the posterior dentition, premolars and molars. Exclusion criteria are patients with high caries activity/risk for caries and/or advanced periodontal disease. Patients who meet the criteria will be offered the opportunity to participate in the study. They will receive written information about the study design, clinical procedures and the materials and methods to be used. Patients who are interested will confirm their participation by a written consent. The patients will be offered an extended warranty for the crowns in case of failure. The study has been approved by the Regional Ethical Board in Lund, Sweden
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
TRIPLE
Enrollment
90
Type: monolithic lithium-disilicate glass ceramic
Type: high translucent zirconia
Type: high translucent zirconia with a mini-veneer of porcelain
Malmö University
Malmo, Sweden
Clinical perfomance
To identify if there are any differences between the materials. The marginal integrity and surface will be rated as excellent, acceptable, retrievable or not acceptable according to a modified California Dental Association (CDA) quality assessment system.
Time frame: 12 month
Clinical perfomance
To identify if there are any differences between the materials. The marginal integrity and surface will be rated as excellent, acceptable, retrievable or not acceptable according to a modified California Dental Association (CDA) quality assessment system.
Time frame: 24 month
Clinical perfomance
To identify if there are any differences between the materials. The marginal integrity and surface will be rated as excellent, acceptable, retrievable or not acceptable according to a modified California Dental Association (CDA) quality assessment system.
Time frame: 36 month
Clinical perfomance
To identify if there are any differences between the materials. The marginal integrity and surface will be rated as excellent, acceptable, retrievable or not acceptable according to a modified California Dental Association (CDA) quality assessment system.
Time frame: 60 month
Patient questionnaire
Self-reported satisfaction with their treatment from 0 ('not satisfied at all') to 10 ('completely satisfied').
Time frame: 12 month
Patient questionnaire
Self-reported satisfaction with their treatment from 0 ('not satisfied at all') to 10 ('completely satisfied').
Time frame: 24 month
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Patient questionnaire
Self-reported satisfaction with their treatment from 0 ('not satisfied at all') to 10 ('completely satisfied').
Time frame: 36 month
Patient questionnaire
Self-reported satisfaction with their treatment from 0 ('not satisfied at all') to 10 ('completely satisfied').
Time frame: 60 month