Geetika Chirumamilla1, Cary E Goldstein1,2, Nathaniel C Lawson3. 1. Private practice, Atlanta, GA, USA. 2. Department of Prosthodontics, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA, USA. 3. Division of Biomaterials, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical performance and survival of Enamic crowns placed in a prosthodontic dental practice. METHODS: Thirty-five patients and 45 crowns were included in the study. At 1-year recall appointments, the restorations were examined for survival. At the 2-year recall appointment, all restorations were clinically evaluated by an independent evaluator for CDA clinical criteria. Kaplan-Meier method and a log-rank test were used to compare the survival of the restorations placed with resin and resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) cements. RESULTS: Out of the 45 crowns that were followed, 2 were lost to follow-up by 1 year and 7 were lost to follow-up by 2 years. Severe complications were observed in 2 teeth by the 2-year follow-up and were recorded as failures due to recurrent decay, and an internal crack in the abutment tooth. There was no difference between the survival probability for crowns cemented with resin cement (96.8%) and with RMGI cements (92.9%) (p = 0.42), however, 1 out of the 14 crowns cemented with RMGI cement debonded. The crowns were evaluated according the CDA criteria with over 90% alfa scores for all categories aside from surface texture (86% alfa). CONCLUSION: The estimated 2-year survival of Enamic crowns is >90%. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Based on the preliminary 2-year results achieved in a clinical practice, Enamic is a suitable material for full-coverage single-unit crowns. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the long term success. (J Esthet Restor Dent 28:231-237, 2016).
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical performance and survival of Enamic crowns placed in a prosthodontic dental practice. METHODS: Thirty-five patients and 45 crowns were included in the study. At 1-year recall appointments, the restorations were examined for survival. At the 2-year recall appointment, all restorations were clinically evaluated by an independent evaluator for CDA clinical criteria. Kaplan-Meier method and a log-rank test were used to compare the survival of the restorations placed with resin and resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) cements. RESULTS: Out of the 45 crowns that were followed, 2 were lost to follow-up by 1 year and 7 were lost to follow-up by 2 years. Severe complications were observed in 2 teeth by the 2-year follow-up and were recorded as failures due to recurrent decay, and an internal crack in the abutment tooth. There was no difference between the survival probability for crowns cemented with resin cement (96.8%) and with RMGI cements (92.9%) (p = 0.42), however, 1 out of the 14 crowns cemented with RMGI cement debonded. The crowns were evaluated according the CDA criteria with over 90% alfa scores for all categories aside from surface texture (86% alfa). CONCLUSION: The estimated 2-year survival of Enamic crowns is >90%. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Based on the preliminary 2-year results achieved in a clinical practice, Enamic is a suitable material for full-coverage single-unit crowns. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the long term success. (J Esthet Restor Dent 28:231-237, 2016).
Authors: Mohamed M Awad; Lamees Albedaiwi; Ahmed Almahdy; Rawaiz Khan; Nick Silikas; Muhanad M Hatamleh; Fahad M Alkhtani; Ali Alrahlah Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2019-08-06 Impact factor: 2.757