3D printed endocrowns versus prefabricated zirconia crowns for pulpotomized primary molars: A randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Objectives

This study aims to compare the clinical performance of 3D printed endocrowns (ECs) and prefabricated zirconia crowns (PZRCs) in restoring pulpotomized primary molars, over 3, 6, and 12 months.

Methods

Thirty pulpotomized mandibular primary molars in 16 children aged 4–8 years were randomized with a 1:1 allocation ratio into two groups: group (A), PZRCs, and group (B), 3D-printed ECs. All restorations were evaluated for esthetic, functional, and biological properties using FDI criteria at 3-, 6-, and 12-month intervals. Restorations requiring repair or replacement (a total restoration score of 4 or 5, respectively) were recorded as failures. For each outcome variable, the Mann-Whitney U test was used for intergroup comparisons, while Friedman's test was used for intragroup comparisons, followed by the Nemenyi post hoc test. The significance level was set at p ≤ 0.05.

Results

No statistically significant difference in survival times between PZRCs and ECs was found (12 and 11.36 months, respectively). Both restoration types showed a clinical success rate of 64.3 %. No statistically significant difference was found between the esthetic success of PZRCs and ECs (92.9 % and 71.4 %, respectively), matching their functional success rates. Similarly, no statistically significant difference was observed in the biological success of ECs and PZRCs (78.6 % and 64.3 %, respectively).

Conclusion

3D-printed ECs can be a promising and convenient alternative to full-coverage restorations in pulpotomized primary molars for up to one year.

Clinical significance

Restoration of pulpotomized primary molars using 3D-printed ECs offers a more conservative and esthetic option with minimal trauma to gingival tissues and reduced chair time, which is crucial for pediatric patients.

Clinical registration number

NCT04909827.