الفهرس 
REVIEW OF LITERATUREOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 194 |  |  |
| | | from | 194 | | |
Abstract
To compare the clinical performance of milled BioHPP PEEK-based single crowns to zirconia veneered single crowns through evaluation of restoration fracture, margin adaptation, and patient satisfaction.
Methodology: Twenty-four full coverage crowns were fabricated for posterior teeth. Scaling and
polishing were performed for all the patients one week prior to preparation. The patients were divided
into two groups according to crowns’ material: group 1(control group) patients received Zr veneered
crowns and Group2 (intervention group) patients received Bio HPP crowns. The preparations were
standardized with supra-gingival, chamfer finish line for all teeth. The try-in and provisionalization
were performed using CAD/CAM (CAM5-S1) machine with software (Exocad). The restorations were
veneered according to manufactures instructions. The restoration surfaces were treated according to the
manufacture instructions for each material. Self-adhesive resin cement (by BISCO) was used for both
groups for crowns cementation. Fracture, margin integrity and biocompatibility (shade and function)
were also evaluated during each recall visit using questionnaire to determine patient satisfaction. These
measurements were repeated after two, four, six, eight, ten and twelve months respectively.
vii
Results: Fisher’s Exact test was used to compare between the two groups; There was no statistically
significant difference between the two groups (P-value = 1.000, Effect size = 0.478) for each time
period, respectively.
Conclusions: Both Zr veneered and Bio HPP crowns revealed successful clinical performance from
the clinical performance aspect and patient satisfaction. No significant difference was recorded
between the two materials; regarding the clinical performance and patient satisfaction. Therefore,
careful checking of the surface of the veneering material one-year post-cementation is recommended.