The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical behavior of zirconia crowns in dental esthetic zone with vertical versus conventional preparation techniques using a new gradient technology monolithic zirconia (5Y-TZP/3Y-TZP).
Introduction: A good relationship between dental restorations and the periodontium is one of the most important aspects to ensure clinical success both in terms of esthetics and function. Dental preparation for fixed prostheses can take various forms classified as horizontal preparation with a defined margin (chamfer), or vertical, or without a margin/finish line. According to some clinical reports, vertical preparation technique provides an increases in the gingival thickness and a greater stability of the gingival margin. Moreover, vertical preparation is characterized by being more conservative with tooth structure. Also, taking impressions is easier since it is a finish area and not a defined line. Null hypothesis: 1. There will be no difference between vertical and conventional preparations in the clinical behavior of zirconia crowns in dental esthetic zone at baseline,3,6,9,12 months evaluation. 2. There will be no difference between vertical and conventional preparations in the patient satisfaction of zirconia crowns in dental esthetic zone at baseline,3,6,9,12 months evaluation.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE
Enrollment
40
Teeth in dental esthetic zone will receive Monolithic Zirconia (5Y-TZP/3Y-TZP) Crowns using vertical preparation technique.
Teeth in dental esthetic zone will receive Monolithic Zirconia (5Y-TZP/3Y-TZP) Crowns using conventional preparation technique.
Cairo university
Cairo, Egypt
RECRUITINGMarginal integrity
Measured by using Modified United States Public Health Service criteria (USPHS criteria) * Alpha (A) the explorer does not catch when drawn across the surface of the restoration toward the tooth, or, if the explorer does not catch, there is no visible crevice along the periphery of the restoration (visual inspection explorer) * Bravo (B) the explorer catches and the is visible evidence of the crevice, which the explorer penetrates, indicating that the edge of the restoration does not adapt closely to the tooth structure. The dentin and/or the base is not exposed, and the restoration is not mobile ( visual inspection and explorer) * Charlie (C) the explorer penetrates crevice defect extended to the dento-enamel junction (explorer)
Time frame: 1 year
Gingival discoloration
Measured by using Modified United States Public Health Service criteria (USPHS criteria) * Alpha (A) None, * Bravo (B) Slight discoloration, removable by finishing, * Charlie (C) Discoloration, localized not removable, * Delta (D) Strong discoloration in major parts of the margin not removable
Time frame: 1 year
Gingival inflammation
Measured by using Modified United States Public Health Service criteria (USPHS criteria) Alpha (A) Non, Bravo (B) Slight, Charlie (C) Moderate, Delta (D) Severe
Time frame: 1 year
Restoration color stability
Measured by using Modified United States Public Health Service criteria (USPHS criteria) Alpha(A) No change, Bravo(B) change in comparison to baseline condition
Time frame: 1 year
Secondary caries
Measured by using Modified United States Public Health Service criteria (USPHS criteria) Alpha (A) Non, Bravo (B) Caries present
Time frame: 1 year
patient satisfaction
Measured by Visual Analog Scale VAS (Questionnaire) a numerical scale from ("0" unsatisfied to "10" satisfied)
Time frame: 1 year
Rana Sherif, Professor
CONTACT
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.