Clinical Trials Logo

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Active, not recruiting

Administrative data

NCT number NCT04995458
Other study ID # GC Europe N.V-4156360
Secondary ID
Status Active, not recruiting
Phase N/A
First received
Last updated
Start date June 5, 2017
Est. completion date June 20, 2023

Study information

Verified date January 2023
Source Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Contact n/a
Is FDA regulated No
Health authority
Study type Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

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.


Description:

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.


Recruitment information / eligibility

Status Active, not recruiting
Enrollment 80
Est. completion date June 20, 2023
Est. primary completion date July 20, 2019
Accepts healthy volunteers No
Gender All
Age group 25 Years to 75 Years
Eligibility Inclusion Criteria: - One posterior tooth (molar or premolar) to restore, and with opposing tooth Exclusion Criteria: - unacceptable oral hygiene - bruxism

Study Design


Related Conditions & MeSH terms


Intervention

Procedure:
composite-ceramic
To assess the clinical performance of composite-ceramic crowns
Monolithic zirconia
To assess the clinical performance of monolithic z¡irconia crowns

Locations

Country Name City State
Spain Faculty of Odontology Madrid

Sponsors (2)

Lead Sponsor Collaborator
Universidad Complutense de Madrid GC Europe

Country where clinical trial is conducted

Spain, 

Outcome

Type Measure Description Time frame Safety issue
Primary 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
Primary 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
Primary 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
Primary 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
Primary 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
Primary Plaque Index (PI) at 1 year 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
Primary 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
Primary 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
Primary 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
Primary 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
Primary 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
Primary 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
Primary Probing depth at baseline Probing depth of the abutment. A score of 0 to 4 was assigned. Higher score means a worse outcome Baseline
Primary 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
Primary 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
Primary 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
See also
  Status Clinical Trial Phase
Active, not recruiting NCT04943315 - Clinical Evaluation of Monolithic Zirconia Crowns N/A
Completed NCT04446078 - Hybrid Polyetheretherketone (PEEK)-Acrylic Resin Prostheses and the All-on-4 Concept for Full Arch Rehabilitation N/A
Not yet recruiting NCT06254053 - Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Zirconomer Restorative N/A
Recruiting NCT05707780 - Clinical Evaluation of Resin Matrix Ceramic Posterior Crowns N/A
Completed NCT04879498 - Clinical Evaluation of Monolithic Zirconia FPDs N/A
Recruiting NCT04533113 - Carious Tissue Selective Removal on Permanent Posterior Teeth. N/A
Completed NCT04111003 - Fiber-reinforced Composite Core Filling in the Restoration of Endodontically Treated Molars - a Clinical Study. N/A
Completed NCT04652323 - Tissue Reactions to Calcium Silicate