Clinical Performance and Patient Satisfaction of Cerasmart Versus Lithium Disilicate (E-max) Endocrowns
1 other identifier
interventional
40
1 country
1
Brief Summary
- 1.RATIONALE All-ceramic endocrowns are bonded to the tooth using adhesive resins creating strong bonds to the tooth structure resulting in strengthening effect and reducing the need for post and core. various CAD/CAM materials can be used for the fabrication of endocrowns including lithium-disilicate reinforced glass-ceramics, feldspathic ceramics, in ceram alumina and in ceram spinell as well as hybrid ceramics and composites.
- 2.OBJECTIVES P= Endodontically treated teeth indicated for endocrown I1= Feldspathic endocrown I2= Hybrid endocrown C= IPS e.max Endocrown O= Clinical performance
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at P25-P50 for not_applicable
Started Feb 2019
Longer than P75 for not_applicable
1 active site
Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.
Trial Relationships
Click on a node to explore related trials.
Study Timeline
Key milestones and dates
First Submitted
Initial submission to the registry
October 23, 2017
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
November 1, 2017
CompletedStudy Start
First participant enrolled
February 15, 2019
CompletedPrimary Completion
Last participant's last visit for primary outcome
June 1, 2023
CompletedStudy Completion
Last participant's last visit for all outcomes
August 1, 2023
CompletedFebruary 8, 2021
February 1, 2021
4.3 years
October 23, 2017
February 5, 2021
Conditions
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (7)
Retention
Modified USPHS Primary outcome: the two groups will be assessed using the modified United States public health service (USPHS) criteria as follows * Alpha (Excellent) ideal. * Bravo (Acceptable) less than ideal but no modifications required * Charlie (Acceptable but modifications needed) staining or other shade modifications required. All the grades of all the patients in both groups will be collected (for the alpha, bravo and Charlie) and the scores for the modified gingival index and the gingival periodontal index and aggregation will be done for the results. For the clinical performance outcome, aggregates of all the alpha grades will be grouped as well as for the bravo and Charlie grades, then a percentage will be calculated for each grade.
6 months
Marginal adaptaion
Modified USPHS Primary outcome: the two groups will be assessed using the modified United States public health service (USPHS) criteria as follows * Alpha (Excellent) ideal. * Bravo (Acceptable) less than ideal but no modifications required * Charlie (Acceptable but modifications needed) staining or other shade modifications required. All the grades of all the patients in both groups will be collected (for the alpha, bravo and Charlie) and the scores for the modified gingival index and the gingival periodontal index and aggregation will be done for the results. For the clinical performance outcome, aggregates of all the alpha grades will be grouped as well as for the bravo and Charlie grades, then a percentage will be calculated for each grade.
6 months
Marginal discoloration
Modified USPHS Primary outcome: the two groups will be assessed using the modified United States public health service (USPHS) criteria as follows * Alpha (Excellent) ideal. * Bravo (Acceptable) less than ideal but no modifications required * Charlie (Acceptable but modifications needed) staining or other shade modifications required. All the grades of all the patients in both groups will be collected (for the alpha, bravo and Charlie) and the scores for the modified gingival index and the gingival periodontal index and aggregation will be done for the results. For the clinical performance outcome, aggregates of all the alpha grades will be grouped as well as for the bravo and Charlie grades, then a percentage will be calculated for each grade.
6 months
Anatomic form
Modified USPHS Primary outcome: the two groups will be assessed using the modified United States public health service (USPHS) criteria as follows * Alpha (Excellent) ideal. * Bravo (Acceptable) less than ideal but no modifications required * Charlie (Acceptable but modifications needed) staining or other shade modifications required. All the grades of all the patients in both groups will be collected (for the alpha, bravo and Charlie) and the scores for the modified gingival index and the gingival periodontal index and aggregation will be done for the results. For the clinical performance outcome, aggregates of all the alpha grades will be grouped as well as for the bravo and Charlie grades, then a percentage will be calculated for each grade.
6 months
Secomdary caries
Modified USPHS Primary outcome: the two groups will be assessed using the modified United States public health service (USPHS) criteria as follows * Alpha (Excellent) ideal. * Bravo (Acceptable) less than ideal but no modifications required * Charlie (Acceptable but modifications needed) staining or other shade modifications required. All the grades of all the patients in both groups will be collected (for the alpha, bravo and Charlie) and the scores for the modified gingival index and the gingival periodontal index and aggregation will be done for the results. For the clinical performance outcome, aggregates of all the alpha grades will be grouped as well as for the bravo and Charlie grades, then a percentage will be calculated for each grade.
6 months
Surface texture
Modified USPHS
6 months
Color match
Modified USPHS Primary outcome: the two groups will be assessed using the modified United States public health service (USPHS) criteria as follows * Alpha (Excellent) ideal. * Bravo (Acceptable) less than ideal but no modifications required * Charlie (Acceptable but modifications needed) staining or other shade modifications required. All the grades of all the patients in both groups will be collected (for the alpha, bravo and Charlie) and the scores for the modified gingival index and the gingival periodontal index and aggregation will be done for the results. For the clinical performance outcome, aggregates of all the alpha grades will be grouped as well as for the bravo and Charlie grades, then a percentage will be calculated for each grade.
6 months
Secondary Outcomes (3)
Modified Gingival bleeding index MGI
6 months
Modified Periodontal Index
6 months
Patient satisfaction
6 months
Study Arms (2)
E-max Endocrowns
ACTIVE COMPARATORall patients in this arm will receive e-max endocrowns
Cerasmart Endocrowns
EXPERIMENTALall patients in this arm will receive Cerasmart endocrowns
Interventions
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if:
- Age range of the patients from 15-60 years old.
- Patients able physically and psychologically to tolerate conventional restorative procedures.
- Patients with endodontically treated molars.
- Patients with adequate root canal treatment with good apical seal.
- Presence of teeth in opposite arch with normal occlusion.
- Supra-gingival margin after preparation.
- One wall defect cavity.
- Patients willing to return for follow-up examinations and evaluation.
You may not qualify if:
- Patients in the growth stage with partially erupted teeth.
- Patients with poor oral hygiene and motivation.
- Patients with parafunctional habits.
- Patients with active periodontal or periapical disease.
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
- Cairo Universitylead
Study Sites (1)
Cairo University
Giza, 12554, Egypt
Related Publications (4)
Naumann M, Blankenstein F, Dietrich T. Survival of glass fibre reinforced composite post restorations after 2 years-an observational clinical study. J Dent. 2005 Apr;33(4):305-12. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2004.09.005. Epub 2004 Dec 10.
PMID: 15781138BACKGROUNDGuo J, Wang Z, Li X, Sun C, Gao E, Li H. A comparison of the fracture resistances of endodontically treated mandibular premolars restored with endocrowns and glass fiber post-core retained conventional crowns. J Adv Prosthodont. 2016 Dec;8(6):489-493. doi: 10.4047/jap.2016.8.6.489. Epub 2016 Dec 15.
PMID: 28018567BACKGROUNDBitter K, Kielbassa AM. Post-endodontic restorations with adhesively luted fiber-reinforced composite post systems: a review. Am J Dent. 2007 Dec;20(6):353-60.
PMID: 18269124BACKGROUND4. Moradpoor H, Raissi S. Survival Rate of Endodontically Treated Teeth with Fiber Posts after Prosthodontic Restoration: A Study Review. Sch J Dent Sci. 2017;4(2):43-
BACKGROUND
MeSH Terms
Conditions
Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Study Officials
- STUDY DIRECTOR
Dr. Gihan El Nagar
Professor, Fixed Prosthodontics department, Cairo University
Central Study Contacts
Study Design
- Study Type
- interventional
- Phase
- not applicable
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Masking
- QUADRUPLE
- Who Masked
- PARTICIPANT, CARE PROVIDER, INVESTIGATOR, OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
- Purpose
- HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH
- Intervention Model
- PARALLEL
- Sponsor Type
- OTHER
- Responsible Party
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
- PI Title
- PhD Student
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
October 23, 2017
First Posted
November 1, 2017
Study Start
February 15, 2019
Primary Completion
June 1, 2023
Study Completion
August 1, 2023
Last Updated
February 8, 2021
Record last verified: 2021-02