Wear Characteristics and Clinical Performance of Lithium Silicate Versus Monolithic Zirconia Crowns.
NCT ID: NCT03530020
Last Updated: 2019-01-03
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
UNKNOWN
NA
22 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2019-02-01
2020-02-01
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
The quality of the overall restorations as well as gingival tissues will be also evaluated according to modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria: (Marginal adaptation, color match, anatomic form, integrity of restoration, secondary caries, retention, tooth sensitivity, gingival index and periodontal index) at baseline, 6 months and 1 year
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Wear Behavior of Milled Posterior Crowns Fabricated From the New Monolithic Zirconia 5Y-TZP/3Y-TZP Compared to Lithium Disilicate
NCT04805281
Clinical Outcomes of Zirconia-reinforced Lithium Silicate Partial Coverage Crowns Compared to Lithium Disilicate Partial Coverage Crowns
NCT02861729
Single-retainer Lithium Di-silicate Versus Zirconia Resin Bonded Bridge for Replacement of an Anterior Missing Tooth.
NCT05861921
Effect of Zirconia Implant Supported PEKK Crowns Versus Lithium Disilicate Crowns on Esthetics
NCT03521024
Evaluation of Patient Satisfaction and Shade Matching of Vita Suprinity Versus Lithium Disilicate (E-max) Ceramic Crowns in Esthetic Zone
NCT02846116
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Up to date despite the popularity of all ceramic restoration, the clinicians have been worried about the wear of tooth enamel antagonist to ceramic materials.
The wear properties of the ceramic restoration can affect the rate of wear of the antagonist enamel. So the wear resistance of ceramic restoration must be the same as enamel.
Explanation for choice of the comparator:
Monolithic zirconia attracts many dentists worldwide due to its excellent mechanical properties, biocompatibility and appreciate aesthetics. Some in vivo studies demonstrated the clinical success of monolithic zirconia restorations as an antagonist to natural enamel with good marginal adaptation, accepted contour, occlusion and minimum gingival response.
Batson et al. studied the quality of CAD/CAM fabricated single tooth restorations (Ten zirconia restorations were compared to 12 metal ceramic and 10 lithium disilicate counterparts) .They found that were no significant differences between the studied crown systems. No difference of the gingival response among the different crown systems. Eighty percent of zirconia crowns needed no occlusal adjustment; also it showed the least amount of marginal discrepancy.
Lohbauer et al. evaluated the amount of wear on the antagonist occlusal surfaces of clinically placed monolithic zirconia premolar and molar crowns using optical profilometry after 2 years of cementation, they found that the mean volume loss for enamel antagonist contacts (n = 7) was measured to 361 μm and the mean of the maximum vertical loss to 204 μm. The mean volume loss for pure ceramic contacts (n = 10) was measured to 333 μm and the mean of the maximum vertical loss to 145 μm.
Mundhe et al.compared the wear of enamel opposing polished zirconia, glazed metal ceramic crowns and natural enamel as a control, one year after the cementation. They found that the occlusal wear of the antagonistic enamel one year after the cementation of metal ceramic crowns ranged from 69.20 ± 4.10 to 179.70 ± 8.09 μm, whereas, for zirconia crowns, it was from 42.10 ± 4.30 to 127.00 ± 5.03 μm.
Stober et al. reported that after 2 years of cementation of the monolithic zirconia crowns, Mean and maximum vertical loss of enamel in occlusal contact areas caused by monolithic zirconia (46 and 151 μm, respectively) was approximately double that caused by contralateral antagonistic enamel (19-26 and 75-115 μm, respectively).
A lithium silicate glass ceramic (obsidian ceramic) is newly introduced to the market. After crystallization, it exhibits an ideal combination of esthetics and strength with translucency that mirrors the vitality of natural teeth for fabrication of full anatomic anterior and posterior crowns. Obsidian ceramic restorations are highly resistant to chipping unlike other ceramics, due to their monolithic composition and average flexural strength of 385 MPa. Also Obsidian Milling Block owes its good wear resistance due to a very high content of ultrafine nanometer-size crystalline structure.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
DOUBLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
monolithic zirconia crowns
Monolithic zirconia attracts many dentists worldwide due to its excellent mechanical properties, biocompatibility and appreciate aesthetics
monolithic zirconia crowns
full anatomical monolithic crowns
lithium silicate crowns
A lithium silicate glass ceramic is newly introduced to the market. After crystallization, it exhibits an ideal combination of aesthetics and strength with translucency that mirrors the vitality of natural teeth for fabrication of full anatomic anterior and posterior crowns.
lithium silicate crowns
lithium silicate glass ceramics are highly resistance to chipping
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
monolithic zirconia crowns
full anatomical monolithic crowns
lithium silicate crowns
lithium silicate glass ceramics are highly resistance to chipping
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
1. Age range of the patients from 21-50 years old; able to read and sign the informed consent document, illiterate patient will be avoided.
2. Patients able physically and psychologically to tolerate conventional restorative procedures.
3. Patients with no active periodontal or pulpal diseases, having teeth with good restorations.
4. Patients with teeth problems indicated for full coverage restoration (e.g. moderate to severe discoloration, coronal fracture where partial coverage would lack retention, malposed or malformed teeth).
5. Patients with root canal treated teeth requiring full coverage restorations.
6. Presence of an opposing natural tooth which is non-restored or minimally restored. (Minimally restored is defined as teeth which have no restoration greater than a Class II a restoration)
7. The opposing arch doesn't have a full coverage restoration or a partial denture.
8. Patients willing to return for follow-up examinations and evaluation.
Exclusion Criteria
1. Patients with poor oral hygiene.
2. Patients with psychiatric problems or unrealistic expectation (patient that has phobia from dental treatments or needle bunch).
3. Patients have no opposite occluding dentition in the area intended for restoration
4. Patients suffer from Para functional habits or temporomandibular disorders. (as those patient may have wear which will affect the results)
21 Years
50 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Cairo University
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Rasmia Mamdouh Ali Salem
principal investigator
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Cairo university
Giza, , Egypt
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Larsson C, Wennerberg A. The clinical success of zirconia-based crowns: a systematic review. Int J Prosthodont. 2014 Jan-Feb;27(1):33-43. doi: 10.11607/ijp.3647.
Daou EE. Esthetic Prosthetic Restorations: Reliability and Effects on Antagonist Dentition. Open Dent J. 2015 Dec 31;9:473-81. doi: 10.2174/1874210601509010473. eCollection 2015.
Mehta SB, Banerji S, Millar BJ, Suarez-Feito JM. Current concepts on the management of tooth wear: part 1. Assessment, treatment planning and strategies for the prevention and the passive management of tooth wear. Br Dent J. 2012 Jan 13;212(1):17-27. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2011.1099.
Mundhe K, Jain V, Pruthi G, Shah N. Clinical study to evaluate the wear of natural enamel antagonist to zirconia and metal ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2015 Sep;114(3):358-63. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.03.001. Epub 2015 May 16.
Olivera AB, Marques MM. Esthetic restorative materials and opposing enamel wear. Oper Dent. 2008 May-Jun;33(3):332-7. doi: 10.2341/07-95.
Magne P, Oh WS, Pintado MR, DeLong R. Wear of enamel and veneering ceramics after laboratory and chairside finishing procedures. J Prosthet Dent. 1999 Dec;82(6):669-79. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3913(99)70008-9.
Burgess JO, Janyavula S, Lawson NC, Lucas TJ, Cakir D. Enamel wear opposing polished and aged zirconia. Oper Dent. 2014 Mar-Apr;39(2):189-94. doi: 10.2341/12-345-L. Epub 2013 Jul 12.
Preis V, Weiser F, Handel G, Rosentritt M. Wear performance of monolithic dental ceramics with different surface treatments. Quintessence Int. 2013 May;44(5):393-405. doi: 10.3290/j.qi.a29151.
Park JH, Park S, Lee K, Yun KD, Lim HP. Antagonist wear of three CAD/CAM anatomic contour zirconia ceramics. J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Jan;111(1):20-9. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.06.002. Epub 2013 Nov 5.
Janyavula S, Lawson N, Cakir D, Beck P, Ramp LC, Burgess JO. The wear of polished and glazed zirconia against enamel. J Prosthet Dent. 2013 Jan;109(1):22-9. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60005-0.
Stober T, Bermejo JL, Rammelsberg P, Schmitter M. Enamel wear caused by monolithic zirconia crowns after 6 months of clinical use. J Oral Rehabil. 2014 Apr;41(4):314-22. doi: 10.1111/joor.12139. Epub 2014 Jan 22.
Lawson NC, Janyavula S, Syklawer S, McLaren EA, Burgess JO. Wear of enamel opposing zirconia and lithium disilicate after adjustment, polishing and glazing. J Dent. 2014 Dec;42(12):1586-91. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.09.008. Epub 2014 Sep 23.
Samer MS, Faraz Q, Al-Dubai SAR, Vohra F, Abdullah H, Taiyeb-Ali TB, Saub R. Clinical Outcomes and Predictors of Satisfaction in Patients with Improved Lithium Disilicate All-Ceramic Crowns. Med Princ Pract. 2017;26(5):470-479. doi: 10.1159/000481864. Epub 2017 Oct 1.
Cvar JF, Ryge G. Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971. Clin Oral Investig. 2005 Dec;9(4):215-32. doi: 10.1007/s00784-005-0018-z. No abstract available.
Lohbauer U, Reich S. Antagonist wear of monolithic zirconia crowns after 2 years. Clin Oral Investig. 2017 May;21(4):1165-1172. doi: 10.1007/s00784-016-1872-6. Epub 2016 Jun 9.
Suputtamongkol K, Anusavice KJ, Suchatlampong C, Sithiamnuai P, Tulapornchai C. Clinical performance and wear characteristics of veneered lithia-disilicate-based ceramic crowns. Dent Mater. 2008 May;24(5):667-73. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2007.06.033. Epub 2007 Aug 28.
Batson ER, Cooper LF, Duqum I, Mendonca G. Clinical outcomes of three different crown systems with CAD/CAM technology. J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Oct;112(4):770-7. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.002. Epub 2014 Jun 28.
Stober T, Bermejo JL, Schwindling FS, Schmitter M. Clinical assessment of enamel wear caused by monolithic zirconia crowns. J Oral Rehabil. 2016 Aug;43(8):621-9. doi: 10.1111/joor.12409. Epub 2016 May 20.
Landry RG, Jean M. Periodontal Screening and Recording (PSR) Index: precursors, utility and limitations in a clinical setting. Int Dent J. 2002 Feb;52(1):35-40. doi: 10.1111/j.1875-595x.2002.tb00595.x.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
enamel and ceramics wear
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.