الفهرس 
One-year clinical evaluation of e-max press versus cerasmart endocrowns in anterior endodontically treated teeth : A randomized clinical trial
List of ContentsOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 109 |  |  |
| | | from | 109 | | |
Abstract
The present study was conducted to clinically evaluate and compare patient satisfaction, gross fracture and marginal adaptation of anterior endocrowns made of Cerasmart and IPS e.max press(Lithium disilicate).The hypothesis of this study was that there would be no difference in the clinical performance of Cerasmart anterior endocrown when compared to the IPS e.max press anterior Endocrowns. A total of twenty-four endocrowns were fabricated for teeth requiring endodontic treatment and full coverage restorations in the esthetic zone. The patients were divided into two groups according to the type of ceramic used: group (1): Control group: Tooth receiving IPS e.max press Endocrowns restoration in the anterior area. group (2): Intervention group: Tooth receiving Cerasmart Endocrowns restoration in anterior area. Teeth were endodontically treated then prepared using a tapered diamond stone with a round end of 1.0mm diameter to produce a 1.2mm amount of reduction. A deep chamfer finish line was established supra-gingivally along the free gingival margin using a tapered diamond stone with a round end. Impressions were made and poured. The obtained casts were scanned for designing the endocrown on software; for the Emax group, restorations were made by the pressing technique while for the Cerasmart group, restorations were milled with Cerec MC XL machine. The finished endocrowns were cemented to their corresponding preparations. Measurement of different outcomes was performed after bonding and at three-month intervals over a one-year period. At each recall examination, the following assessment surveys (clinical evaluations) were done: Direct clinical evaluation using modified USPHS criteria for margin integrity and gross fracture. Summary and conclusion 109 Written questionnaires to evaluate patients{u2019} satisfaction and potential postoperative discomfort. Results Regarding gross fracture, there was no statistically significant difference at any time interval between Emax and Cerasmart endocrowns