Clinical efficacy of different marginal forms of endocrowns: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Jieli Sun, Wenhao Ruan, Jiahui He, Xiaoyu Lin, Bowen Ci, Siye Yin, Wenjuan Yan, Jieli Sun, Wenhao Ruan, Jiahui He, Xiaoyu Lin, Bowen Ci, Siye Yin, Wenjuan Yan

Abstract

Background: After root canal treatment, most tooth defects need to be restored. Onlay restoration is widely used to restore dental defects. Endocrown is a new type of onlay; however, dentists have yet to obtain a full understanding of the clinical effects of marginal forms of endocrowns. Here, we present a multicenter protocol to compare the clinical efficacy of two marginal forms (flat and 90-degree shoulder) for tooth restoration. The efficacy will be evaluated by marginal fit, marginal discoloration, and integrity of restoration.

Methods: The proposed flat and 90-degree shoulder marginal endocrown assessment trial is an open-label, parallel-group, multicenter randomized controlled trial involving two hospitals. A total of 200 patients will be included in this trial, and the following patient inclusion criteria will be applied: good oral hygiene habits, no periodontal diseases, receipt of standard root canal treatment, and need for endocrown restoration. Patients will be enrolled after providing signed informed consent and will be divided into two groups (flat and 90-degree shoulder endocrown) in accordance with a random number table. Treatment allocation will be balanced (1:1). Endocrowns will be cemented by dual-cured luting composite. Clinical evaluations will be performed at baseline and at 24 months after treatment in accordance with modified US Public Health Service criteria by two independent evaluators. The primary outcome will be marginal fit; secondary outcome measures will include debonding, marginal discoloration, and integrity of restoration. All acquired data will be analyzed by an independent statistician. Wilcoxon one-sample tests will be used for intra-group comparisons, and Wilcoxon two-sample tests will be used for inter-group comparisons. The Bonferroni method will be used to correct for multiple comparisons, and hierarchical logistic regression will be applied to determine central effects.

Discussion: The results of this trial will provide a clinical basis for clinicians to restore teeth by endocrowns and to improve long-term restoration for patients.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03398395. Registered on 12 January 2018.

Keywords: CAD/CAM; Dental defect; Dental restoration; Endocrown; Margin; Root canal treatment.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Schematic representations of the two marginal forms of endocrown. A. Ninety-degree shoulder endocrown (intervention group). B. Flat endocrown (control group).
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) Figure

References

    1. Skupien JA, Cenci MS, Opdam NJ, Kreulen CM, Huysmans MC, Pereira-Cenci T. Crown vs. composite for post-retained restorations: a randomized clinical trial. J Dent. 2016;48:34–39. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.03.007.
    1. Schwartz RS, Robbins JW. Post placement and restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a literature review. J Endod. 2004;30:289–301. doi: 10.1097/00004770-200405000-00001.
    1. Rocca GT, Krejci I. Crown and post-free adhesive restorations for endodontically treated posterior teeth: from direct composite to endocrowns. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2013;8:156–179.
    1. Yamanel K, Caglar A, Gülsahi K, Ozden UA. Effects of different ceramic and composite materials on stress distribution in inlay and onlay cavities: 3-D finite element analysis. Dent Mater J. 2009;28:661–670. doi: 10.4012/dmj.28.661.
    1. Ozyoney G, Yan Koğlu F, Tağtekin D, Hayran O. The efficacy of glass-ceramic onlays in the restoration of morphologically compromised and endodontically treated molars. Int J Prosthodont. 2013;26:230–234. doi: 10.11607/ijp.2768.
    1. Leonard DL. Commentary: the endocrown: an alternative approach for restoring extensively damaged molars. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2013;25:391. doi: 10.1111/jerd.12071.
    1. Fages M, Bennasar B. The endocrown: a different type of all-ceramic reconstruction for molars. J Can Dent Assoc. 2013;79:d140.
    1. Lander E, Dietschi D. Endocrowns: a clinical report. Quintessence Int. 2008;39:99–106.
    1. Sevimli G, Cengiz S, Oruc MS. Endocrowns: review. J Istanb Univ Fac Dent. 2015;49:57–63. doi: 10.17096/jiufd.71363.
    1. Biacchi GR, Basting RT. Comparison of fracture strength of endocrowns and glass fiber post-retained conventional crowns. Oper Dent. 2012;37:130–136. doi: 10.2341/11-105-L.
    1. Mohammadi N, Kahnamoii MA, Yeganeh PK, Navimipour EJ. Effect of fiber post and cusp coverage on fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars directly restored with composite resin. J Endod. 2009;35:1428–1432. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.07.010.
    1. Dejak B, Młotkowski A. 3D-Finite element analysis of molars restored with endocrowns and posts during masticatory simulation. Dent Mater. 2013;29:e309–e317. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2013.09.014.
    1. Dietschi D, Duc O, Krejci I, Sadan A. Biomechanical considerations for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a systematic review of the literature--Part 1. Composition and micro- and macrostructure alterations. Quintessence Int. 2007;38:733–743.
    1. Lin CL, Chang YH, Pa CA. Estimation of the risk of failure for an endodontically treated maxillary premolar with MODP preparation and CAD/CAM ceramic restorations. J Endod. 2009;35:1391–1395. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.06.020.
    1. Lin CL, Chang YH, Chang CY, Pai CA, Huang SF. Finite element and Weibull analyses to estimate failure risks in the ceramic endocrown and classical crown for endodontically treated maxillary premolar. Eur J Oral Sci. 2010;118:87–93. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2009.00704.x.
    1. Guo J, Wang Z, Li X, Sun C, Gao E, Li H. A comparison of the fracture resistances of endodontically treated mandibular premolars restored with endocrowns and glass fiber post-core retained conventional crowns. J Adv Prosthodont. 2016;8:489–493. doi: 10.4047/jap.2016.8.6.489.
    1. Sedrez-Porto JA, Rosa WL, da Silva AF, Münchow EA, Pereira-Cenci T. Endocrown restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2016;52:8–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.07.005.
    1. Kierklo A, Tribiłło R, Walendziuk A, Stokowska W. The influence of cervical lesion on the stress state and strength of tooth with occlusal restoration: a numerical model study. Rocz Akad Med Bialymst. 2002;47:95–104.
    1. Juloski J, Radovic I, Goracci C, Vulicevic ZR, Ferrari M. Ferrule effect: a literature review. J Endod. 2012;38:11–19. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.09.024.
    1. Pierrisnard L, Bohin F, Renault P, Barquins M. Corono-radicular reconstruction of pulpless teeth: a mechanical study using finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;88:442–448. doi: 10.1067/mpr.2002.128376.
    1. Taha D, Spintzyk S, Schille C, Sabet A, Wahsh M, Salah T, et al. Fracture resistance and failure modes of polymer infiltrated ceramic endocrown restorations with variations in margin design and occlusal thickness. J Prosthodont Res. 2018;62:293–297. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2017.11.003.
    1. Vianna A, Prado C, Bicalho AA, Pereira R, Neves F, Soares CJ. Effect of cavity preparation design and ceramic type on the stress distribution, strain and fracture resistance of CAD/CAM onlays in molars. J Appl Oral Sci. 2018;26:e20180004. doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0004.
    1. Otto T, Mörmann WH. Clinical performance of chairside CAD/CAM feldspathic ceramic posterior shoulder crowns and endocrowns up to 12 years. Int J Comput Dent. 2015;18:147–161.
    1. Bernhart J, Bräuning A, Altenburger MJ, Wrbas KT. Cerec3D endocrowns--two-year clinical examination of CAD/CAM crowns for restoring endodontically treated molars. Int J Comput Dent. 2010;13:141–154.
    1. Van Noort R. The future of dental devices is digital [J] Dent Mater. 2012;28:3–12. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.10.014.
    1. Gracis S, Thompson VP, Ferencz JL, Silva NR, Bonfante EA. A new classification system for all-ceramic and ceramic-like restorative materials. Int J Prosthodont. 2015;28:227–235. doi: 10.11607/ijp.4244.
    1. El-Damanhoury HM, Haj-Ali RN, Platt JA. Fracture resistance and microleakage of endocrowns utilizing three CAD-CAM blocks. Oper Dent. 2015;40:201–210. doi: 10.2341/13-143-L.
    1. Höland W, Rheinberger V, Apel E, Hoen CV. Principles and phenomena of bioengineering with glass-ceramics for dental restoration. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2007;27:1521–1526. doi: 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2006.04.101.
    1. Elsaka SE, Elnaghy AM. Mechanical properties of zirconia reinforced lithium silicate glass-ceramic. Dent Mater. 2016;32:908–914. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2016.03.013.
    1. Kolassa JE. A comparison of size and power calculations for the Wilcoxon statistic for ordered categorical data. Stat Med. 1995;14:1577–1581. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780141408.
    1. Priyadarshini BI, Jayaprakash T, Nagesh B, Sunil CR, Sujana V, Deepa VL. One-year comparative evaluation of Ketac Nano with resin-modified glass ionomer cement and Giomer in noncarious cervical lesions: a randomized clinical trial. J Conserv Dent. 2017;20:204–209. doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.218305.
    1. Heymann HO, Sturdevant JR, Brunson WD, Wilder AD, Sluder TB, Bayne SC. Twelve-month clinical study of dentinal adhesives in class V cervical lesions. J Am Dent Assoc. 1988;116:179–183. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.1988.0345.
    1. Barnes DM, Blank LW, Gingell JC, Gilner PP. A clinical evaluation of a resin-modified. Glass ionomer restorative material. J Am Dent Assoc. 1995;126:1245–1253. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.1995.0359.
    1. Cvar JF, Ryge G. Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971. Clin Oral Investig. 2005;9:215–232. doi: 10.1007/s00784-005-0018-z.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren