A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial on Press, Block Lithium Disilicate, and 3D Printed Partial Crowns in Posterior Teeth: One-Year Recall

This study compares the clinical performances of two lithium disilicate (Initial LiSi press vs. Initial LiSi Block, GC Corp.) and a 3D printed resin (Temp Print, GC Corp.) partial crown using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) evaluation criteria and survival rates after one year o...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Prosthesis (Basel, Switzerland) Switzerland), 2024-08, Vol.6 (4), p.887-895
Main Authors: Verniani, Giulia, Casucci, Alessio, Val, Matteo, Ruggiero, Gennaro, Manfredini, Daniele, Ferrari, Marco, Ferrari Cagidiaco, Edoardo
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
3-D printers
3D printed restorations
Bond strength
Composite materials
digital workflow
Enamel
Ethics
Lithium
lithium disilicate
Manufacturing
Mechanical properties
Oral hygiene
posterior partial crowns
Prosthodontics
randomized controlled trial
Rubber
Teeth
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This study compares the clinical performances of two lithium disilicate (Initial LiSi press vs. Initial LiSi Block, GC Corp.) and a 3D printed resin (Temp Print, GC Corp.) partial crown using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) evaluation criteria and survival rates after one year of clinical service. Eighty-nine partial adhesive restorations on posterior teeth were realized using different materials: Group 1 used Initial LiSi press, Group 2 used Initial LiSi Block, and Group 3 used Temp Print. An analog workflow was used to realize the restoration of Group 1, while a fully digital workflow was used for Groups 2 and 3. The modified USPHS parameters, together with periodontal parameters, were collected at baseline and at the one-year recall. Contingency tables to assess for significant differences of success over time in each group were used. All modified USPHS parameters showed Alpha or Bravo; no Charlie was recorded. No statistically significant difference emerged between the three groups in any of the assessed variables (p > 0.05). All modified USPHS scores were compatible with the outcome of clinical success, no restoration was replaced or repaired, and the survival rate was 100% at the one-year recall. No difference was found between the traditional and digital workflows used to fabricate the restorations.
ISSN:2673-1592
2673-1592
DOI:10.3390/prosthesis6040064