Wear of Enamel Antagonist to ZLS Crowns

Study Results

Results pending

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.

Recruitment Status

UNKNOWN

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

26 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2021-07-10

Study Completion Date

2022-07-01

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the antagonist enamel wear of two processing options of Celtra duo crowns (polished and glaze fired) restoring posterior teeth in comparison with sound enamel wear at baseline and 6 months

Related Clinical Trials

Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.

Evaluation of Antagonist Wear Behavior and Patient Satisfaction of Zirconia Reinforced Lithium Silicate Glass When Compared to Monolithic Zirconia

NCT03697018

Wear of the Natural Enamel

UNKNOWN NA

Wear of Enamel Against Polished Zirconia Crowns

NCT02289781

Tooth Wear

COMPLETED

Wear of Enamel Antagonist to Two Different Types of Monolithic Zirconia Monolithic Zirconia

NCT04798300

Wear, Occlusal

UNKNOWN NA

Clinical Evaluation of Wear Behavior of Human Enamel and Chipping of Veneered Zirconia Against Monolithic Zirconia

NCT03295513

Broken Tooth With Complication Non Vital Teeth Mutilated Teeth

UNKNOWN NA

Evaluation of Patient Satisfaction and Color Difference Between Natural Teeth and Monolithic All-ceramic Crowns Fabricated From Celtra Press Treated With Different Surface Finishing Protocols

NCT03813628

Natural Optical Properties

UNKNOWN NA

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Adhesive dental ceramics have proven to guarantee optimal esthetic results alongside satisfactory mechanical properties. Due to these qualities, today they are considered the first-choice restorative materials both for minimal restorations and for the reconstruction of severely compromised teeth. Gold alloy reconstructions preferred in the past, especially for their optimal wear properties, have been progressively substituted by these new materials.

Loss of hard tooth substance is a natural process taking place during mastication. Also, Increased wear is a common reason of failure for restorations exposed to masticatory forces. Excessive wear may be responsible for numerous problems, such as hypersensitivity, loss of occlusal contact, defects of the periodontium, reduction of masticatory efficiency, tooth migration and wrong tooth relations, weakness of masticatory muscles, and changes in the vertical and horizontal jaw relations, which may cause functional and esthetic impairments.

An optimal restorative material should provide similar characteristics to natural dental tissues. The physiological wear of enamel and dentin should represent the reference for a reasonable wear pattern of restorative materials The manufacturers tend to improve the mechanical behavior of their products leads to the progressive offer of new ceramics for daily practice. Assessment of their wear behavior and comparison through detailed tests become necessary at this point.

comparing the wear of enamel opposing polished zirconia, polished lithium disilicate crowns opposing to natural tooth. Patients were recalled after 1year and impression were recorded with opposing arch and baseline and final cast were scanned and superimposed using 3 D scanner. They found that the mean of occlusal wear of the antagonistic enamel of polished zirconia was 42.0 μm, Enamel wear against natural antagonist (control group) 34.68 μm, whereas, for Enamel wear against polished lithium disilicate crowns (group 2) 40.06 μm Enamel wear against natural antagonist (control group) 35.09 μm.

studying 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.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Wear, Tooth Wear, Occlusal

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Patient will receive a restoration with superior function, esthetics, and excellent clinical performance

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

DOUBLE

Participants Outcome Assessors

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

monolithic glazedcrowns

glazed Celtra due crowns

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

glazed zirconium lithium silicate

Intervention Type OTHER

monolithic glazed crown

monolithic polished crowns

polished Celtra due crowns

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

polished zirconium lithium silicate

Intervention Type OTHER

monolithic polishedcrowns

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

glazed zirconium lithium silicate

monolithic glazed crown

Intervention Type OTHER

polished zirconium lithium silicate

monolithic polishedcrowns

Intervention Type OTHER

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

glazed Celtra due polished Celtra due

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Pt aged 21-60 years old, be able to read and sign the informed consent document.
* Psychologically and physically able to withstand conventional dental procedures.
* Patients needing posterior full coverage restorations
* Patients with sound natural antagonists.
* Have no active periodontal or pulpal diseases
* Able to attend punctually for preplanned visits and evaluation.

Exclusion Criteria

* Patients with poor oral hygiene, high caries risk and uncooperative patients.
* Pregnant women.
* Psychiatric problems or unrealistic expectations.
* Lack of opposing dentition in the area of interest.
* Restored occlusal surface opposing the planned restoration.
* The presence of a removable or fixed orthodontic appliance.
* Patients with parafunctional habits.

Minimum Eligible Age

21 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

50 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes