Clinical Evaluation of Composite-ceramic Implant-supported Posterior Crowns (Cerasmart) (Cerasmart)
Clinical Evaluation of Cerasmart Implant-supported Posterior Crowns
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed 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.
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Anticipated)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
-
Madrid, Spain, 28040
- Faculty of Odontology
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- One posterior tooth (molar or premolar) to restore, and with opposing tooth
Exclusion Criteria:
- unacceptable oral hygiene
- bruxism
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: Double
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: Composite-ceramic
To assess the clinical performance and survival of posterior composite-ceramic implant-supported crowns
|
To assess the clinical performance of composite-ceramic crowns
Other Names:
|
|
Active Comparator: Monolithic zirconia
To assess the clinical performance and survival of posterior monolitihic zirconia implant-supported crowns
|
To assess the clinical performance of monolithic z¡irconia crowns
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
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
|
|
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
|
|
Quality of restorations at 2 year
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 year
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
|
|
Probing depth at baseline
Time Frame: Baseline
|
Probing depth of the abutment.
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.
A score of 0 to 4 was assigned.
Higher score means a worse outcome
|
1 year
|
|
Probing depth at 2 year
Time Frame: 2 years
|
Probing depth of the abutment.
A score of 0 to 4 was assigned.
Higher score means a worse outcome
|
2 years
|
|
Probing depth at 3 year
Time Frame: 3 years
|
Probing depth of the abutment teeth.
A score of 0 to 4 was assigned.
Higher score means a worse outcome
|
3 years
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Collaborators
Collaborators
Investigators
Investigators
- Study Director: MARIA J SUAREZ, PhD, Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Study Start
Primary Completion (Actual)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (Anticipated)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Keywords
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- GC Europe N.V-4156360
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
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.
Clinical Trials on Dental Materials
-
NCT05707780RecruitingDental Materials
-
NCT01104363WithdrawnDental Implants | Dental Impression Materials | Dental Impression Techniques
-
NCT04943315Active, not recruitingDental Materials
-
NCT04589416CompletedDental Adhesive Materials
-
NCT07552350Active, not recruitingClass II Dental Caries | Bioactive Dental Restorative Materials
-
NCT05644860Active, not recruitingNanotechnology, Dental Materials, Composites
-
NCT02572570TerminatedDental Caries | Dental Restoration Failure of Marginal Integrity | Unrepairable Overhanging of Dental Restorative Materials | Poor Aesthetics of Existing Restoration | Secondary Dental Caries Associated With Failed or Defective Dental Restorations | Fractured Dental Restorative Materials Without Loss of Materials | Fracture of Dental Restorative Materials With Loss of Material
-
NCT04652323CompletedMineral Trioxide Aggregate | Dental Materials
-
NCT07394751Active, not recruitingDental Caries | Dental Adhesive Materials
Clinical Trials on composite-ceramic
-
NCT00935519Active, not recruitingArthroplasty, Replacement, Hip
-
NCT04563624Unknown
-
NCT07429747Not yet recruitingComposite Restorations | 3D Printing | Proximal Cavities of Posterior Teeth | Class II Lesions | Bulk Fill
-
NCT07598305CompletedBallet Dancers | Caries, Cervical
-
NCT03476304UnknownEndodontically Treated Teeth
-
NCT01724827CompletedDental Caries | Inlays
-
NCT04249726Active, not recruiting
-
NCT07157410RecruitingIndirect Tooth-colored Onlay Restorations in Posterior Teeth | Clinical Performance of Cervical-margin-relocated Onlay Restorations