Clinical Evaluation of 3D Printed Versus CAD/CAM Milled Onlays
- Conditions
- Badly Decayed Molars
- Registration Number
- NCT06774560
- Lead Sponsor
- Cairo University
- 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.
- Detailed Description
Not available
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- NOT_YET_RECRUITING
- Sex
- All
- Target Recruitment
- 50
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.
- 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.
Study & Design
- Study Type
- INTERVENTIONAL
- Study Design
- PARALLEL
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Fracture 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 Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Retention 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
Marginal adaptation 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
Marginal discoloration 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 caries 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
Post-operative hypersensitivity 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
Surface texture 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
Anatomic form 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
Related Research Topics
Explore scientific publications, clinical data analysis, treatment approaches, and expert-compiled information related to the mechanisms and outcomes of this trial. Click any topic for comprehensive research insights.