Effect of Cervical Margin Relocation With Different Restorative Materials on Three-year Clinical Performance and In-Vitro Fracture Resistance of Indirect Hybrid Ceramic Onlay Restorations
Overview
- Phase
- Not Applicable
- Intervention
- Not specified
- Conditions
- Dental Caries
- Sponsor
- Mansoura University
- Enrollment
- 64
- Locations
- 1
- Primary Endpoint
- Modified World Dental Federation (FDI) clinical Criteria
- Status
- Active, not recruiting
- Last Updated
- 2 years ago
Overview
Brief Summary
The current study intends to evaluate the effect of cervical margin relocation with different restorative materials on three-year clinical performance of indirect Computer-Aided-Design (CAD)/ Computer-Aided-Manufacture (CAM) onlay restorations. This study is designed to test the null hypothesis that the three-year clinical performance of onlay restorations is significantly affected by cervical margin relocation with different restorative materials.
Investigators
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria
- •Good general health
- •Good oral hygiene
- •Patient aging 20-40 y
- •Patients with proximal deep carious lesion
- •International caries detection and assessment system (ICDAS) 4 or 5 that diagnosed clinically and radiographically.
- •Normal response to a vitality test.
Exclusion Criteria
- •poor general health
- •poor oral hygiene
- •Teeth would need direct pulp capping
- •Teeth act as abutment for fixed or removable prosthesis.
- •patients with excessive parafunctional habits
- •Patient potentially unable to be compliant to recall visits
Outcomes
Primary Outcomes
Modified World Dental Federation (FDI) clinical Criteria
Time Frame: three year follow up
1. Functional Properties of restorations: 1. Fracture of material and retention 2. Marginal adaptation 3. Radiographic examination 2. Biological Properties of restorations 1. Postoperative (hyper-sensitivity and tooth vitality 2. Recurrence of caries 3. Tooth integrity (enamel cracks, tooth fractures) 4. Periodontal Response 5. Adjacent mucosa Descriptive scale from 1 to 5. Note: 1 is clinically excellent 5 is clinically poor. Scores(1-3) are considered sufficient The overall cumulative success rate of restorations will be evaluated
Gingiva
Time Frame: three year follow up
Gingival Index Scale from 0 to 3 will be used for evaluation considering that score 0 represents normal gigiva while score 3 represents severely inflamed gingiva