There is limited data available on VITA AMBRIA glass ceramic , so this study is conducted to investigate the esthetic parameters of this new glass press system.
This study will be randomized, double blinded, 1:1 parallel group, superiority clinical trial. including two research groups; VITA AMBRIA ( intervention) and IPS e.max press( Comprator). The total subjects in this study are 50, recruited from the faculty' out patient clinic. 50 partial coverage indirect restorations will fabricated and cemented for each subject. Clinical evaluations will be conducted at baseline, 6, and 12 months of follow-up according to FDI World Dental Federation criteria by two independent evaluators. The primary outcome is examining the color stability and translucency.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE
Enrollment
50
25 onlay restroations will be fabricated from Vita-ambria glass ceramic press system.
25 onlay restroations will be fabricated from IPS e.max glass ceramic press system.
Faculty of Dental Medicine, Boys, Cairo Al-Azhar University
Cairo, Nasr City, Egypt
Color stability and translucency
According to FDI criteria; 1. Color and translucency of the restoration have a clinically excellent colour match with the surrounding enamel and adjacent teeth. There is no difference in shade, brightness or translucency between restoration and tooth. 2. Colour match is clinically acceptable but minor deviations in shade between tooth and restoration are apparent. 3. Colour match is satisfactory; there is a clear deviation in colour match that does not affect aesthetics. 4. Colour and/or translucency are clinically unsatisfactory. There is a localized discoloration or opaqueness in the restoration making it immediately recognizable from a speaking distance and affecting the appearance of the dentition. Partial removal and repair are possible. 5. Colour match and/or translucency. are clinically unsatisfactory. The restoration displays an unacceptable alteration in colour and/or translucency. Restoration needs replacement.
Time frame: 12 months
Surface gloss/Luster
1.1 Luster comparable to enamel. 1.2.1 Slightly dull, not noticeable from speaking distance. 1.2.2 Some isolated pores. 1.3.1 Dull surface but acceptable if covered with film of saliva. 1.3.2 Multiple pores on more than one third of the surface. 1.4.1 Rough surface cannot be masked by saliva film, simple polishing is not sufficient. Further intervention necessary. 1.4.2 Voids. 1.5 Very rough, unacceptable plaque retentive surface.
Time frame: 12 months
Staining a. surface b. margin
2a.1 No surface staining. 2b.1 No marginal staining. 2a.2 Minor surface staining, easily removable by polishing. 2b.2 Minor marginal staining, easily removable by polishing. 2a.3 Moderate surface staining that may also present on other teeth, not esthetically unacceptable. 2b.3 Moderate marginal staining, not esthetically unacceptable. 2a.4 Unacceptable surface staining on the restoration and major intervention necessary for improvement. 2b.4 Pronounced marginal staining; major intervention necessary for improvement. 2a.5 Severe surface staining and/or subsurface staining, generalized or localized, not accessible for intervention. 2b.5 Deep marginal staining, not accessible for intervention.
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Time frame: 12 months
Esthetic anatomical form
4.1 Form is ideal. 4.2 Form is only slightly deviated from the normal. 4.3 Form deviates from the normal but is esthetically acceptable. 4.4. Form is affected and unacceptable esthetically. Intervention/correction is necessary. 4.5 Form is unsatisfactory and/or lost. Repair not feasible / reasonable, Replacement needed.
Time frame: 12 months