健康去哪儿
健趣网登录 关闭
还没有账号?立即注册

Clinical Assessement of Glazed Versus Polished Lithium Disilicate Crowns in Surface Roughness and Enamel Antagonists Wear

Sponsor:
Collaborators:
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Mervat Mourad Rouchdy Farid,Cairo University
October 2, 2018
October 5, 2018
October 5, 2018
November 2018
November 2019   (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
Antagonists enamel wear using profilometer[ Time Frame: 1 year ]
wear of enamel antagonists opposing to emaxPress crowns that will be measured in um

Same as current
  • Restoration surface Roughness using profilometer[ Time Frame: 1 year ]
    restoration roughness after different finishing methods that will me measured in um
  • Patient satisfaction[ Time Frame: 1 year ]
    Questionnaire
 

Clinical Assessement of Glazed Versus Polished Lithium Disilicate Crowns in Surface Roughness and Enamel Antagonists Wear

Patient Satisfaction and Clinical Assessment of Surface Roughness and Wear of Enamel Antagonists for Polished Versus Glazed Posterior Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramic Crowns

It is believed that final glazing yields the most acceptable ceramic surfaces in terms of smoothness. However, since reglazing must be performed in a dental laboratory with the use of a thermal furnace, it requires multiple office visits. Repeated firings have a destructive effect on ceramic surfaces and can cause deformation. Conversely, polishing is easy and simple and can be accomplished in a single session.

Interventional
N/A
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Intervention Model Description:
Masking: Interventional
Masking Description:
Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Other: polished emax Press
    lithium disilicate glass ceramic crowns subjected to polishing only
  • Active Comparator: glazed emax Press
  • Experimental: Polished emax Press
 
Not yet recruiting
28
Same as current
January 2020
November 2019   (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
Inclusion Criteria: - Patients from 18-50 years old who are able to read and sign the informed consent document. - Physically and psychologically able to tolerate conventional restorative procedures. - Have no active periodontal or pulpal diseases, have teeth with good restorations. - Patients have no temporomandibular disorders. - Each participant needed a crown on either a first or second premolar or first or second molar in any arch. - Teeth selected shoud include: restorability with a crown:root ratio of at least 1:1. presence of an opposing natural tooth which was non-restored or minimally restored. the presence of two non-restored or minimally restored teeth opposing each other on the same quadrants as the crowned tooth and the opposing to serve as enamel controls. Minimally restored was defined as teeth which have no restoration greater than a Class II amalgam restoration. - Willing to return for follow-up examinations and evaluation. Exclusion criteria - Patients in the growth stage with partially erupted teeth. - Patients with poor oral hygiene and motivation. - Pregnant women. - Psychiatric problems or unrealistic expectations. - Lack of opposite occluding dentition in the area intended for restoration. - Patients with temporomandibular disorders.
Sexes Eligible for Study: All
18 Years and older   (Adult, Older Adult)
No
 
 
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product: No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product: No
Plan to Share IPD:
Mervat Mourad Rouchdy Farid,Cairo University
Cairo University
:
Cairo University
October 2018

ICMJE     Data element required by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Health Organization ICTRP
请使用微信扫码报名