Edoardo Ferrari-Cagidiaco, Giulia Verniani, Andrew Keeling, Ferdinando Zarone, Roberto Sorrentino, Daniele Manfredini, Marco Ferrari
{"title":"关于压入式和阻断式二硅酸锂局部冠的随机对照临床试验:四年回顾","authors":"Edoardo Ferrari-Cagidiaco, Giulia Verniani, Andrew Keeling, Ferdinando Zarone, Roberto Sorrentino, Daniele Manfredini, Marco Ferrari","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate clinical performances of two lithium disilicate systems (Initial LiSi press vs Initial LiSi Block, GC Co.) using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) evaluation criteria and survival rates after 4 years of clinical service.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Partial adhesive crowns on natural abutment posterior teeth were made on 60 subjects who were randomly divided into two groups: Group 1: Initial LiSi press and Group 2: Initial LiSi Block. Fabrication of partial crowns was made with full analog and digital procedure in Groups 1 and 2 respectively. The restorations were followed-up for 1 and 4 years, and the modified USPHS evaluation was performed at baseline and each recall together with periodontal evaluation. Contingency tables to assess for significant differences of success over time in each group and time-dependent Cox regression to test for differences between the two groups were used and the level of significance was set at P< 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Regarding modified USPHS scores, all evaluated parameters showed Alpha or Bravo and no Charlie was recorded. No statistically significant difference emerged between the two groups in any of the assessed variables (P> 0.05). No statistically significant difference between scores recorded at the baseline and each recall. All modified USPHS scores were compatible with the outcome of clinical success and no one restoration was replaced or repaired, and the survival rate was 100% after 4 years of clinical service. No difference was found between traditional and digital procedure to fabricate the crowns. The two lithium disilicate materials showed similar results after 4 years of clinical service.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>The crowns made with the two tested lithium disilicate materials with analog and digital procedures showed 100% survival after 4 years of clinical service with no statistically significant difference using the modified USPHS scores.</p>","PeriodicalId":7538,"journal":{"name":"American journal of dentistry","volume":"37 2","pages":"85-90"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A randomized controlled clinical trial on press and block lithium disilicate partial crowns: A 4-year recall.\",\"authors\":\"Edoardo Ferrari-Cagidiaco, Giulia Verniani, Andrew Keeling, Ferdinando Zarone, Roberto Sorrentino, Daniele Manfredini, Marco Ferrari\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate clinical performances of two lithium disilicate systems (Initial LiSi press vs Initial LiSi Block, GC Co.) using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) evaluation criteria and survival rates after 4 years of clinical service.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Partial adhesive crowns on natural abutment posterior teeth were made on 60 subjects who were randomly divided into two groups: Group 1: Initial LiSi press and Group 2: Initial LiSi Block. Fabrication of partial crowns was made with full analog and digital procedure in Groups 1 and 2 respectively. The restorations were followed-up for 1 and 4 years, and the modified USPHS evaluation was performed at baseline and each recall together with periodontal evaluation. Contingency tables to assess for significant differences of success over time in each group and time-dependent Cox regression to test for differences between the two groups were used and the level of significance was set at P< 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Regarding modified USPHS scores, all evaluated parameters showed Alpha or Bravo and no Charlie was recorded. No statistically significant difference emerged between the two groups in any of the assessed variables (P> 0.05). No statistically significant difference between scores recorded at the baseline and each recall. All modified USPHS scores were compatible with the outcome of clinical success and no one restoration was replaced or repaired, and the survival rate was 100% after 4 years of clinical service. No difference was found between traditional and digital procedure to fabricate the crowns. The two lithium disilicate materials showed similar results after 4 years of clinical service.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>The crowns made with the two tested lithium disilicate materials with analog and digital procedures showed 100% survival after 4 years of clinical service with no statistically significant difference using the modified USPHS scores.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7538,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of dentistry\",\"volume\":\"37 2\",\"pages\":\"85-90\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
A randomized controlled clinical trial on press and block lithium disilicate partial crowns: A 4-year recall.
Purpose: To evaluate clinical performances of two lithium disilicate systems (Initial LiSi press vs Initial LiSi Block, GC Co.) using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) evaluation criteria and survival rates after 4 years of clinical service.
Methods: Partial adhesive crowns on natural abutment posterior teeth were made on 60 subjects who were randomly divided into two groups: Group 1: Initial LiSi press and Group 2: Initial LiSi Block. Fabrication of partial crowns was made with full analog and digital procedure in Groups 1 and 2 respectively. The restorations were followed-up for 1 and 4 years, and the modified USPHS evaluation was performed at baseline and each recall together with periodontal evaluation. Contingency tables to assess for significant differences of success over time in each group and time-dependent Cox regression to test for differences between the two groups were used and the level of significance was set at P< 0.05.
Results: Regarding modified USPHS scores, all evaluated parameters showed Alpha or Bravo and no Charlie was recorded. No statistically significant difference emerged between the two groups in any of the assessed variables (P> 0.05). No statistically significant difference between scores recorded at the baseline and each recall. All modified USPHS scores were compatible with the outcome of clinical success and no one restoration was replaced or repaired, and the survival rate was 100% after 4 years of clinical service. No difference was found between traditional and digital procedure to fabricate the crowns. The two lithium disilicate materials showed similar results after 4 years of clinical service.
Clinical significance: The crowns made with the two tested lithium disilicate materials with analog and digital procedures showed 100% survival after 4 years of clinical service with no statistically significant difference using the modified USPHS scores.
期刊介绍:
The American Journal of Dentistry, published by Mosher & Linder, Inc., provides peer-reviewed scientific articles with clinical significance for the general dental practitioner.