Evaluation of Hybrid Composite-nanoceramic on Material Characteristic and Clinical Use Over Tooth Wear Patients.
试验速览
- 阶段
- 不适用
- 入组人数
- 50
- 试验地点
- 2
- 主要终点
- Evaluation the change of hybrid composite-nanoceramic on material characteristic and clinical use over tooth wear patients.
研究概览
简要总结
Evaluation of hybrid composite-nanoceramic on material characteristic and clinical use over tooth wear patients.
详细描述
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.
研究设计
- 研究类型
- Interventional
- 分配方式
- Na
- 干预模型
- Single Group
- 主要目的
- Treatment
- 盲法
- None
入排标准
- 年龄范围
- 20 Years 至 100 Years（Adult, Older Adult）
- 性别
- All
- 接受健康志愿者
- 是
入选标准
- 未提供
排除标准
- 未提供
结局指标
主要结局
Evaluation the change of hybrid composite-nanoceramic on material characteristic and clinical use over tooth wear patients.
时间窗: 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.
次要结局
未报告次要终点