European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine

Abstract

Aim: to evaluate of maxillary anterior endodontically treated teeth restored with different types of crown.
Materials and methods: This was a retrospectively study conducted in the Department of Prosthodontic, Hi tech Dental College and Hospital, Bhubaneswar, India for 1 year. The 60 ETTs were divided into four groups depend on the crown type or the final restoration: Group A consists of 15 ETT with GFP and composite restoration. Group B consists of 15 ETT with GFP and porcelain VITA VM (R) (Vita Zahn fabric /Germany) fused to metal restoration. Group C consists of 15 ETT with GFP and e. max all ceramic (IPS e.max, Ivoclar/Vivadent) crowns. Group D consists of 15 ETT with GFP and zirconia crowns, which consisted of a core's build up with Vita In-Ceram YZ Disc (Vita Zahn fabric/ Germany), and the porcelain build-up were done with porcelain VITA VM(R) (Vita Zahn fabric/Germany) crowns Methods of fibre post preparation and cementation
Results: A total of 80 restorations were recruited to the study and 60 ETT which met the inclusion criteria were evaluated during this study. 15 restorations for each (composite resin,e. max and zirconia). All the restorations were evaluated clinically and radiographic at the different periods one week of cementation, 3, 6, 9, 12 months respectively. On the clinical assessment, the restorations in the four groups had no changes during one week; 3 and 6 months review. While a movement of the crown margin under finger pressure was present in 2 case and loss or retention in 3 cases of zirconia. The periodontal status with violation of biological width was present in 1 case of PFM and finally the colour changes were obvious in 2 case of PFM and 3 cases of composite restoration during the follow-up review of 9 and 12 months. No clinical significant differences between the types of restoration at different time’s inter- vals were detected. The radiographic assessment for the restorations in the four groups had no changes during the one week, and 3 months review. While during 6 months, a loosed of retention in one case of zirconia crown was detected, but during the 9 and 12-month reviews, two cases of recurrent caries at the cervical margin of the composite restoration, one case with presence of periapical infection were recorded. Finally, the Loss of retention of the post was recorded with one of the PFM restorations. No significant differences between the types of restoration at different time’s intervals were detected by the radiographs. Conclusion:e. Max and zirconia all ceramic crowns showed better clinical and radiographic performance than the PFM and composite restorations over 12 months recall.