Clinical Evaluation of 3D Printed Versus CAD/CAM Milled Onlays Over a Period of One Year: a Randomized Clinical Trial
Overview
- Phase
- Not Applicable
- Intervention
- Not specified
- Conditions
- Badly Decayed Molars
- Sponsor
- Cairo University
- Enrollment
- 50
- Primary Endpoint
- Fracture
- Status
- Not yet recruiting
- Last Updated
- last year
Overview
Brief Summary
The digital workflow in dentistry has proven in the past decades to be a time-efficient, multifunctional, effortless, and accessible approach. The inherited shortages milling machines represented by the incapability to produce accurate complex hollow structures may give preference to modern 3D ceramic printing.
Computer-aided-design/computer-aided-manufacturing (CAD/CAM) in dentistry is a digital subtractive approach for manufacturing indirect restorations. Nevertheless, waste materials and milling burs wearing are considered as key disadvantages of CAD/CAM technology, and are the main drive to improve 3D printing technology (additive manufacturing) as the latter has shown considerable efficiency in minimising wasted materials.
Although additive manufacturing has been known since the 1980s, its application in dentistry is relatively new and not fully studied with limited research and in vivo studies on their clinical performance.
Investigators
Nada Sameh Ahmed Farouk
Principal investigator
Cairo University
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria
- •Age: 25-45 years.
- •Males or females.
- •Participants with carious vital ower molars indicated for onlay (one or two missing cusps)
- •Patients with at least 20 teeth under occlusion.
- •Good oral hygiene.
- •Co-operative patients approving to participate in the trial.
- •Have sufficient cognitive ability to understand consent procedures.
Exclusion Criteria
- •Participants with parafunctional habits or bruxism.
- •Participants with systemic diseases or disabilities that may affect participation.
- •Heavy smoking.
- •Pregnancy.
- •Lack of compliance.
- •Severe or active periodontal disease.
- •Cognitive impairment.
Outcomes
Primary Outcomes
Fracture
Time Frame: One Year
This outcome will be measured using modified USPH criteria for clinical evaluation of restoration failure where they are given scores Alpha is excellent , Bravo is acceptable, Charlie is not accepted
Secondary Outcomes
- Marginal adaptation(One Year)
- Retention(One Year)
- Marginal discoloration(One Year)
- Secondary caries(One Year)
- Post-operative hypersensitivity(One Year)
- Surface texture(One Year)
- Anatomic form(One Year)