Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| GC Europe | INDUSTRY |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The objectives of the present study are to analyze and to compare the survival rates and possible biological and technical complications arising from the use of composite-ceramic posterior implant-supported crowns with those obtained when using their counterparts prepared using monolithic zirconia restorations. The null hypothesis is that no differences would be found between the parameters studied for each type of restoration.
Eighty patients in need of posterior implant-supported crowns (n=80) were recruited from the Master of Buccofacial Prostheses and Occlusion, Faculty of Odontology, University Complutense of Madrid, Madrid, Spain. Before treatment, all participants were informed of the purpose of the study, the clinical procedures, the material to be used, and the advantages and risks of the restorations. They were asked to give their written informed consent to participate in the study.
Eighty posterior implant-supported crowns were produced and allocated in parallel an randomly to either monolithic zirconia or composite-ceramic restorations by means of a randomization list. A total of 40 implant-supported crowns were placed using monolithic zirconia and 40 composite-ceramic. The clinical procedures were performed by two experienced clinicians. Full-arch impressions were taken using addition silicone. The restorations were cemented using a resin-based cement. The occlusion was adjusted and the surfaces polished after cementing. All restorations were prepared by an experienced technician. The restorations will be examined at one week (baseline), 1, 2, and 3 years by two researchers who were not involved in the restorative treatment. Each assessor evaluated the restoration independently, and the worst assessment will be used in the event of discrepancies.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Composite-ceramic | Experimental | To assess the clinical performance and survival of posterior composite-ceramic implant-supported crowns |
|
| Monolithic zirconia | Active Comparator | To assess the clinical performance and survival of posterior monolitihic zirconia implant-supported crowns |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| composite-ceramic | Procedure | To assess the clinical performance of composite-ceramic crowns |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Quality of restorations at baseline | The quality of the surface and color, anatomical form and marginal integrity was assessed using the California Dental Association's (CDA) assessment system. Each CDA criterion was ranked on a scale of 1 to 4, where 4 = excellent, 3 = good, 2 = unacceptable (repair), and 1 = unacceptable (replacement). | Baseline |
| Quality of restorations at 1 year | The quality of the surface and color, anatomical form and marginal integrity was assessed using the California Dental Association's (CDA) assessment system. Each CDA criterion was ranked on a scale of 1 to 4, where 4 = excellent, 3 = good, 2 = unacceptable (repair), and 1 = unacceptable (replacement). | 1 year |
| Quality of restorations at 2 year | The quality of the surface and color, anatomical form and marginal integrity was assessed using the California Dental Association's (CDA) assessment system. Each CDA criterion was ranked on a scale of 1 to 4, where 4 = excellent, 3 = good, 2 = unacceptable (repair), and 1 = unacceptable (replacement). | 2 years |
| Quality of restorations at 3 year | The quality of the surface and color, anatomical form and marginal integrity was assessed using the California Dental Association's (CDA) assessment system. Each CDA criterion was ranked on a scale of 1 to 4, where 4 = excellent, 3 = good, 2 = unacceptable (repair), and 1 = unacceptable (replacement). | 3 years |
| Plaque Index (PI) at baseline | Plaque Index (PI) of the abutment and control teeth. A score of 0 to 3 was assigned. Higher score means a worse outcome. | baseline |
| Plaque Index (PI) at 1 year |
Not provided
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| MARIA J SUAREZ, PhD | Universidad Complutense de Madrid | Study Director |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Faculty of Odontology | Madrid | 28040 | Spain |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Monolithic zirconia | Procedure | To assess the clinical performance of monolithic z¡irconia crowns |
|
Plaque Index (PI) of the abutment and control teeth. A score of 0 to 3 was assigned. Higher score means a worse outcome. |
| 1 year |
| Plaque Index (PI) at 2 years | Plaque Index (PI) of the abutment and control teeth. A score of 0 to 3 was assigned. Higher score means a worse outcome. | 2 years |
| Plaque Index (PI) at 3 years | Plaque Index (PI) of the abutment and control teeth. A score of 0 to 3 was assigned. Higher score means a worse outcome. | 3 years |
| Gingival Index (GI) at baseline | Gingival Index (GI) of the abutment and control teeth. A score of 0 to 3 was assigned. Higher score means a worse outcome. | Baseline |
| Gingival Index (GI) at 1 year | Gingival Index (GI) of the abutment and control teeth. A score of 0 to 3 was assigned. Higher score means a worse outcome. | 1 year |
| Gingival Index (GI) at 2 years | Gingival Index (GI) of the abutment and control teeth. A score of 0 to 3 was assigned. Higher score means a worse outcome. | 2 years |
| Gingival Index (GI) at 3 years | Gingival Index (GI) of the abutment and control teeth. A score of 0 to 3 was assigned. Higher score means a worse outcome. | 3 years |
| Probing depth at baseline | Probing depth of the abutment. A score of 0 to 4 was assigned. Higher score means a worse outcome | Baseline |
| Probing depth at 1 year | Probing depth of the abutment. A score of 0 to 4 was assigned. Higher score means a worse outcome | 1 year |
| Probing depth at 2 year | Probing depth of the abutment. A score of 0 to 4 was assigned. Higher score means a worse outcome | 2 years |
| Probing depth at 3 year | Probing depth of the abutment teeth. A score of 0 to 4 was assigned. Higher score means a worse outcome | 3 years |