Clinical Evaluation of Monolithic Zirconia Crowns

January 22, 2023 updated by: Universidad Complutense de Madrid

Clinical Evaluation of Monolithic Zirconia and Metal-ceramic Posterior Crowns

The objectives of the present study are to compare the survival rates and possible biological and technical complications of metal-ceramic, and monolithic third-generation zirconia posterior crowns. The null hypothesis is that no differences would be found between the parameters studied for each type of restoration.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Active, not recruiting

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

Seventy patients requiring at least one crown in the posterior region of the maxilla or mandible were included in this study. All subjects were recruited from the Master in Buccofacial Prostheses and Occlusion (Faculty of Odontology, University Complutense of Madrid, Spain). Before treatment, patients were informed of the study objectives, clinical procedures, materials used, advantages and possible risks of the ceramic material, and other therapeutic alternatives. Prior to the study, participants were asked to provide written informed consent. Seventy posterior crowns were produced and allocated in parallel and randomly to either monolithic third-generation zirconia, or metal-ceramic (MC) restorations. The clinical procedures were performed by two experienced clinicians. All participants received oral hygiene instructions and a professional tooth cleaning prior to prosthetic treatment. The abutment teeth were prepared with a 0.8- to 1-mm-wide circumferential chamfer, an axial reduction of 1 mm and an occlusal reduction of 1- to 2.0-mm. A 10- to 15- degree angle of convergence was achieved for the axial walls. Tooth preparations were scanned with an intraoral scanner and the crowns were designed using specific software. The restorations were then cemented using a resin self-adhesive cement. After cementation, occlusal contacts were evaluated, and the adjusted surfaces were polished using a porcelain polishing kit. The 70 crowns were examined at 1week (baseline),1, 2 and 3 years by 2 researchers who were not involved in the restorative treatment.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Anticipated)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
70

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • Spain
      • Madrid, Spain, 28040
        • Faculty of Odontology

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

20 years to 75 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • One posterior tooth (molar or premolar) to be crowned
  • Vital abutment or abutment with an adequate endodontic treatment
  • Abutment not crowned previously
  • Periodontally healthy abutment with no signs of bone resorption or periapical disease.
  • Adequate occlusogingival height ≥ 4 mm.
  • Stable occlusion and the presence of natural antagonist tooth.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients who present reduced crown length (less than 4 mm occlusogingival height).
  • Poor oral hygiene, high caries activity, or active periodontal disease

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Double

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Experimental: Monolithic zirconia
To assess the clinical performance and survival of posterior monolithic zirconia crowns
Procedure: Monolithic zirconia
posterior crowns
Other Names:
  • Katana
Active Comparator: Metal-ceramic
To assess the clinical performance and survival of posterior metal-ceramic crowns
Procedure: Metal-ceramic
posterior crowns

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Quality of restorations at baseline
Time Frame: 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
Quality of restorations at 1 year
Time Frame: 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
Quality of restorations at 2 years
Time Frame: 2 years
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
Quality of restorations at 3 years
Time Frame: 3 years
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
Plaque Index (PI) at baseline
Time Frame: 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
Plaque Index (PI) at 1 year
Time Frame: 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
Plaque Index (PI) at 2 years
Time Frame: 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
Plaque Index (PI) at 3 years
Time Frame: 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
Gingival Index (GI) at baseline
Time Frame: 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
Gingival Index (GI) at 1 year
Time Frame: 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
Gingival Index (GI) at 2 years
Time Frame: 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
Gingival Index (GI) at 3 years
Time Frame: 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
Margin stability at baseline
Time Frame: Baseline
To assess the gingival margin stability throughout the evaluation period (subgingival, isogingival or supragingival)
Baseline
Margin stability at 1 year
Time Frame: 1 year
To assess the gingival margin stability throughout the evaluation period (subgingival, isogingival or supragingival)
1 year
Margin stability at 2 years
Time Frame: 2 years
To assess the gingival margin stability throughout the evaluation period (subgingival, isogingival or supragingival)
2 years
Margin stability at 3 years
Time Frame: 3 years
To assess the gingival margin stability throughout the evaluation period (subgingival, isogingival or supragingival)
3 years
Probing depth at baseline
Time Frame: Baseline
Probing depth of the abutment and control teeth. A score of 0 to 4 was assigned. Higher score means a worse outcome
Baseline
Probing depth at 1 year
Time Frame: 1 year
Probing depth of the abutment and control teeth. A score of 0 to 4 was assigned. Higher score means a worse outcome
1 year
Probing depth at 2 years
Time Frame: 2 years
Probing depth of the abutment and control teeth. A score of 0 to 4 was assigned. Higher score means a worse outcome
2 years
Probing depth at 3 years
Time Frame: 3 years
Probing depth of the abutment and control teeth. A score of 0 to 4 was assigned. Higher score means a worse outcome
3 years
Patient satisfaction at 3 years
Time Frame: 3 years
Subjective patient satisfaction using Visual analogue scale (VAS) ranged from 0 (worst possible result) to10 (best possible result). The items analyzed were: esthetics, function, comfort, overall satisfaction
3 years

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
Universidad Complutense de Madrid

Collaborators

Collaborators

An organization other than the sponsor that provides support for a clinical study. This support may include activities related to funding, design, implementation, data analysis, or reporting.
Kuraray Co. Ltd

Investigators

Investigators

A researcher involved in a clinical study. Related terms include site principal investigator, site sub-investigator, study chair, study director, and study principal investigator.
  • Study Director: MARIA J SUAREZ, PhD, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
May 6, 2019

Primary Completion (Actual)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
December 15, 2020

Study Completion (Anticipated)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
July 15, 2023

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
June 23, 2021

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
June 23, 2021

First Posted (Actual)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
June 29, 2021

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimate)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
January 24, 2023

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
January 22, 2023

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
January 1, 2023

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • University Complutense Madrid
  • 4157246 (Other Grant/Funding Number: Kuraray Europe GmbH)

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings