The objectives of the present prospective randomized clinical study are to evaluate and to compare the survival and success rates, possible biological and technical complications, and the clinical performance of metal-ceramic, monolithic zirconia and resin-matrix posterior crowns. The null hypothesis is that no differences would be found between the parameters studied for each type of restoration.
A total of 60 patients, in whom the placement of a crown in the posterior region of the maxilla or mandible was indicated, will be included in the study. The patients will be recruited from the Master of Buccofacial Prostheses and Occlusion (School of Dentistry; University Complutense of Madrid). Prior to treatment, patients will be informed regarding the aims of the study, the clinical procedure, the materials used, the risks and benefits of ceramic restorations and the alternatives to the proposed treatment. All the patients will be provided with a written informed consent for the inclusion in this study, Ninety posterior crowns will be produced and assigned in parallel and randomly to either resin-matrix ceramic, zirconia or metal-ceramic restorations. Three experienced prosthodontists will treat the patients. Abutment preparation will be performed in a standardized manner: circumferentially chamfer (1 mm in width), axial reduction of 1 mm, and an occlusal reduction of 1.5 to 2 mm. The tapering angle between the axial walls will be approximately 10- to 12- degrees. Full-arch digital impressions will be taken using an Intraoral Scanner. The restorations will be cemented with a resin cement. The restorations will be examined at one week (baseline), 1, 2, and 3 years, by two researchers who were not involved in the restorative treatment
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE
Enrollment
90
posterior crowns
posterior crowns
posterior crowns
Faculty of Odontology
Madrid, Spain
RECRUITINGSurvival and success rates
Survival and success rates with Kaplan Meier method
Time frame: 3 years
Quality of restorations at baseline
The restorations will be assessed using the California Dental Association's assessment system, for the surface and color, anatomic form, and margin integrity.
Time frame: Baseline
Quality of restorations at 1 year
The restorations will be assessed using the California Dental Association's assessment system, for the surface and color, anatomic form, and margin integrity.
Time frame: 1 year
Quality of restorations at 2 years
The restorations will be assessed using the California Dental Association's assessment system, for the surface and color, anatomic form, and margin integrity.
Time frame: 2 years
Quality of restorations at 3 years
The restorations will be assessed using the California Dental Association's assessment system, for the surface and color, anatomic form, and margin integrity.
Time frame: 3 years
Plaque Index (PI) at baseline
Plaque Index (PI) of the abutment and control tooth will be assessed. A score of 0 to 3 will be assigned. Higher score will mean a worse outcome
Time frame: Baseline
Plaque Index (PI) at 1 year
Plaque Index (PI) of the abutment and control tooth will be assessed. A score of 0 to 3 will be assigned. Higher score will mean a worse outcome
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Time frame: 1 year
Plaque Index (PI) at 2 years
Plaque Index (PI) of the abutment and control tooth will be assessed. A score of 0 to 3 will be assigned. Higher score will mean a worse outcome
Time frame: 2 years
Plaque Index (PI) at 3 years
Plaque Index (PI) of the abutment and control tooth will be assessed. A score of 0 to 3 will be assigned. Higher score will mean a worse outcome
Time frame: 3 years
Gingival Index (GI) at baseline
Gingival Index (GI) of the abutment and control tooth will be assessed. A score of 0 to 3 will be assigned. Higher score will mean a worse outcome
Time frame: Baseline
Gingival Index (GI) at 1 year
Gingival Index (GI) of the abutment and control tooth will be assessed. A score of 0 to 3 will be assigned. Higher score will mean a worse outcome
Time frame: 1 year
Gingival Index (GI) at 2 years
Gingival Index (GI) of the abutment and control tooth will be assessed. A score of 0 to 3 will be assigned. Higher score will mean a worse outcome
Time frame: 2 years
Gingival Index (GI) at 3 years
Gingival Index (GI) of the abutment and control tooth will be assessed. A score of 0 to 3 will be assigned. Higher score will mean a worse outcome
Time frame: 3 years
Probing depth at baseline
Probing depth of the abutment and control tooth. A score of 0 to 4 will be assigned. Higher score will mean a worse outcome
Time frame: Baseline
Probing depth at 1 year
Probing depth of the abutment and control tooth. A score of 0 to 4 will be assigned. Higher score will mean a worse outcome
Time frame: 1 year
Probing depth at 2 years
Probing depth of the abutment and control tooth. A score of 0 to 4 will be assigned. Higher score will mean a worse outcome
Time frame: 2 years
Probing depth at 3 years
Probing depth of the abutment and control tooth. A score of 0 to 4 will be assigned. Higher score will mean a worse outcome
Time frame: 3 years
Margin stability at baseline
To assess the gingival margin stability of the abutment and control tooth throughout the evaluation period (subgingival, isogingival or supragingival)
Time frame: Baseline
Margin stability at 1 year
To assess the gingival margin stability of the abutment and control tooth throughout the evaluation period (subgingival, isogingival or supragingival)
Time frame: 1 year
Margin stability at 2 years
To assess the gingival margin stability of the abutment and control tooth throughout the evaluation period (subgingival, isogingival or supragingival)
Time frame: 2 years
Margin stability at 3 years
To assess the gingival margin stability of the abutment and control tooth throughout the evaluation period (subgingival, isogingival or supragingival)
Time frame: 3 years
Patient satisfaction at 3 years
Subjective patient satisfaction using Visual analogue scale (VAS) ranged from 0 (worst possile result) to 10 (best possible result)
Time frame: 3 years