Can Zirconia Crown be the First Choice for Primary Teeth?
NCT ID: NCT04574180
Last Updated: 2023-02-21
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.
COMPLETED
NA
22 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2017-01-01
2019-09-09
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Study design: In this randomized, non-blinded clinical study a total of 45 teeth were included, primary molars and anterior teeth and requiring restoration after root canal treatment. Stainless steel(SCC), zirconia(ZC) and strip(S) crowns compared clinically, radiographically and periodontally during follow up period for 6 months. Parents were asked to fill out questionnaire at the 1st and 6th months to evaluate the satisfaction level. In addition, patients' pain and discomfort level was assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS) scale.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Clinical Efficacy of Preformed Pediatric Zirconia and Metal Crown
NCT05910905
Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Zirconomer Restorative
NCT06254053
Success of Zirconia and Composite Strip Crowns for Primary Incisors
NCT05034003
Comparative Study Between Zirconia Crowns and Endocrowns in Pulpotomized Primary Molars
NCT04073901
Custom-made Versus Prefabricated Zirconia Crowns for Primary Molars.
NCT04620174
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Sample size: This study included 20 maxillary anterior and 25 posterior teeth that required restoration due to excessive material loss. The study groups were:
Zirconia crown(ZC) restoration on the primary central and lateral tooth with root canal treatment (n = 10), strip crown(S) restoration on the primary central and lateral tooth with root canal treatment (n = 10), Zirconia crown(ZC) restoration on primary teeth with root canal treatment (n = 12), Stainless-steel crown(SSC) restoration on primary teeth with root canal treatment (n = 13).
Clinical Procedure:
Assessment
Clinical assesment: Table 1 Gingival scores: Löe and Silness Gingival Index(GI)\[Löe, 1967\].
Periapical radiographic evaluation: Preoperative and every follow up visit. (Radiographic assesment: Table 2)
Intraoral photos (standard method): before treatment, after treatment and at every follow-up visit.
Crown restoration: All caries were removed after administration of local anaesthesia and proper isolation. Calcium hydroxide/iodoform paste (Vitapex®) pulpectomy was performed according to the guideline. Teeth were restored with a composite resin Nova Resin (IMICRYL®, Konya, Turkey) and glass ionomer cement (MERON®, Voco, Germany) was used as a base material. Strip Crown Forms (3M-ESPE, St. Paul,Minnesota, USA) were used to restore teeth group SC. ZC group (NuSmile, Houston, Tex. the USA) and SCC(3M ESPE, Minnesota, USA) used.
Visual analogue scale(VAS): 0-2: no pain/discomfort 4-6:moderate 8-10: high pain/discomfort.
The child was asked to choose his/her feelings about the tooth after the procedure and in follow-up appointments. Parents were asked to complete their satisfaction surveys, including the post-op and 6-month controls for patient satisfaction assessment.
Statistical Method:
IBM® SPSS® Statistics V23 analysed data. The Mann-Whitney U and Chi-square tests were used for intergroup comparisons within the anterior and posterior regions. The Friedman and Cochrane Q tests were used for intra-group time-wise comparisons. Analysis results were presented as the median (q1-q3) and frequency (percentage). P\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Table 1: Clinical assesment
Crown retention 0= yes 1= no
Individual modified gingival index 0= healthy 1= mild gingival bleeding with a papillus 2= severe inflammation
Plaque index 0= no plaque
1. = presence of plaque as a film in the gingival margin
2. = presence of moderate plaque
3. = plaque covering a large number of surfaces
Color change 0 = no coloring
1. = minor coloration
2. = noticeable coloration
Buccal strip crown surface 0 = no loss 1 = less than 50% loss 2 = more than 50% loss 4 = loss of the entire surface
Surface abrasion of the antagonist teeth 0= no abrasion
1. abrasion started on the incisal surface of the casps
2. abrasion more than on the casps
Position of the crowns regarding gingival margin 0= subgingival
1= supragingival
Occlusion 0= contact (marked or superficial) 1= no contact
Condition of the antagonistic tooth 0= natural tooth
1. restored tooth
2. stainless steel crown
3. aesthetic crowns
Location on the arch curve 0= normal alignment
1. with rotation
2. wrong position
Proximal contacts 0= good (floss passing)
1= weak, no contact
Table 2. Postoperative Radiographic Evaluation Criteria and Scores Radiographic evaluation of crown margins 0=good adaptation, continuity in crown contractions
1. small radiolucent area under the restoration
2. huge openings
3. loss of restoration
Radiographic evaluation 0= healthy, no pathology
1. presence of a pathology that does not require immediate treatment
2. presence of pathology requiring immediate treatment
Radiographic evaluation of pulpal treatment 0=appropriate root treatment
1. short or overflowed root treatment
2. failed pulpal treatment
3. tooth with no pulpal treatment
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
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Group 1
Zirconia crown anterior (NuSmile, Houston, Texas, USA).
Dental Crown
Pediatric size dental crown; restore damaged tooth to its normal shape, size, and function.
Group 2
Zirconia crown posterior (NuSmile, Houston, Texas, USA).
Dental Crown
Pediatric size dental crown; restore damaged tooth to its normal shape, size, and function.
Group 3
Stainless steel crown (3M-ESPE, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA)
Dental Crown
Pediatric size dental crown; restore damaged tooth to its normal shape, size, and function.
Group 4
Strip Crown (3M-ESPE, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA)
Dental Crown
Pediatric size dental crown; restore damaged tooth to its normal shape, size, and function.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Dental Crown
Pediatric size dental crown; restore damaged tooth to its normal shape, size, and function.
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
2. Patients under 10 years old to perform endodontic treatment for adequate root support
3. Clinical and radiographically confirmed dental caries scored international caries detection and assessment system(icdas) criteria 4-5.
4. Patient/parent approve
Exclusion Criteria
2. Acute abscess or mobility
3. Internal or external resorption
4. Inadequate oral hygiene after oral health motivation that contraindicate root canal treatment
5. Need for endocarditis prophylaxis
6. Temporomandibular joint(TMJ) disorders, bruxism
7. Absence of antagonistic teeth
3 Years
11 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
TC Erciyes University
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Zeynep Aslı GÜÇLÜ
Assocciate Prof
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Erciyes University
Kayseri, , Turkey (Türkiye)
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Walia T, Brigi C, KhirAllah ARMM. Comparative evaluation of surface roughness of posterior primary zirconia crowns. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2019 Feb;20(1):33-40. doi: 10.1007/s40368-018-0382-4. Epub 2018 Oct 20.
Seminario AL, Garcia M, Spiekerman C, Rajanbabu P, Donly KJ, Harbert P. Survival of Zirconia Crowns in Primary Maxillary Incisors at 12-, 24- and 36-Month Follow-Up. Pediatr Dent. 2019 Sep 15;41(5):385-390.
El Makawi Y, Khattab N. In Vitro Comparative Analysis of Fracture Resistance of Lithium Disilicate Endocrown and Prefabricated Zirconium Crown in Pulpotomized Primary Molars. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2019 Dec 13;7(23):4094-4100. doi: 10.3889/oamjms.2019.864. eCollection 2019 Dec 15.
Sonbol HN, Al-Bitar ZB, Shraideh AZ, Al-Omiri MK. Parental-caregiver perception of child oral-health related quality of life following zirconia crown placement and non-restoration of carious primary anterior teeth. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2018 Mar;19(1):21-28. doi: 10.23804/ejpd.2018.19.01.04.
Lee JH. Guided tooth preparation for a pediatric zirconia crown. J Am Dent Assoc. 2018 Mar;149(3):202-208.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2017.08.048. Epub 2018 Feb 1.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
TSA-2017-6723
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.