Evaluation of Hybrid Composite-nanoceramic on Material Characteristic and Clinical Use Over Tooth Wear Patients.
Overview
- Phase
- Not Applicable
- Intervention
- Not specified
- Conditions
- Dental Wear
- Sponsor
- National Taiwan University Hospital
- Enrollment
- 50
- Locations
- 1
- Primary Endpoint
- Evaluation the change of hybrid composite-nanoceramic on material characteristic and clinical use over tooth wear patients.
- Last Updated
- 5 years ago
Overview
Brief Summary
Evaluation of hybrid composite-nanoceramic on material characteristic and clinical use over tooth wear patients.
Detailed Description
Composite resin is often used to restore patient's dental defficiency, and also the material to cover and protect weak tooth structure. In tooth wear patients, multiple factors attributing to destruct their teeth. The durability and strength of the resotrative material must be reinforced. Nanoceramic infiltrated in composite resin may enhance its mechanical characteristics. Therefore, hybrid composite-nanoceramic material may be effective for tooth wear patients.
Investigators
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria
- Not provided
Exclusion Criteria
- Not provided
Outcomes
Primary Outcomes
Evaluation the change of hybrid composite-nanoceramic on material characteristic and clinical use over tooth wear patients.
Time Frame: 3months, 6months, 12months, 24months, 36months
Participants with worn dentition dentition (attrition, erosion, abrasion, abfraction) were enrolled in the present study. They were restored with hybrid composite-nanoceramic resin(Cerasmart, GC Corporation). During the follow up time, participants were examined with clinical photos, radiographic film, intraoral scans, and asked to fill in questionnaires. The questionnaires included subjective questionnaire with VAS scale and objective questionnaire according to FDI criteria. The restorations were evaluated by two observers at baseline and after 3, 6, 12, 24, 36 months according to the FDI criteria, which were categorized into three groups: esthetic parameters (four criteria), functional parameters (six criteria) and biological parameters (six criteria). Restorations were scored for clinical acceptability. Scores 4 and 5 were recorded as clinically unacceptable, and scores 5 was recorded for clinically failed.