Literature DB >> 31893566

Laboratory Technician Assessment of the Quality of Single-Unit Crown Preparations and Impressions as Predictors of the Clinical Acceptability of Crowns as Determined by the Treating Dentist: Findings from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

Michael S McCracken1, Mark S Litaker1, Alexandra E S Thomson2, Alan Slootsky3,4, Gregg H Gilbert1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In-laboratory assessment by laboratory technicians may offer insight to increase clinical success of dental crowns, and research in this area is lacking.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dentists in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network enrolled patients in a study about single-unit crowns; laboratory technicians evaluated the quality of tooth preparations and impressions. The primary outcome for each crown was clinical acceptability (CAC), as judged by the treating dentist. A secondary outcome was "Goodness of Fit (GOF)," a composite score of several aspects of clinical fit, also judged by the study dentist. A mixed-effects logistic regression was used to analyze associations between laboratory technician ratings and the CAC and GOF.
RESULTS: Dentists (n = 205) evaluated 3731 crowns. Technicians ranked the marginal detail of impressions as good or excellent in 92% of cases; other aspects of the impression were ranked good or excellent 88% of the time. Regarding tooth preparation, about 90% of preparations were considered adequate (neither excessive nor inadequate reduction). Factors associated with higher CAC were more preparation taper, and use of optical imaging. Factors associated with better GOF were higher impression quality, greater occlusal reduction, more preparation taper, and optical imaging.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall quality of preparations and impressions was very high, as evaluated by laboratory technicians. Several clinical parameters were associated with higher CAC and GOF. Clinicians who struggle with crown remakes might consider less conservative tooth preparation, as well as using digital impression technology.
© 2020 by the American College of Prosthodontists.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Crowns; Dental Laboratory; Impressions; Practice-Based Research; Preparations

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31893566      PMCID: PMC7147961          DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13137

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Prosthodont        ISSN: 1059-941X            Impact factor:   2.752


  45 in total

1.  Assessment of clinical preparations for single gold and ceramometal crowns.

Authors:  B K Poon; R J Smales
Journal:  Quintessence Int       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 1.677

2.  Comparison of convergence angles achieved in posterior teeth prepared for full veneer crowns.

Authors:  Paresh B Patel; David G Wildgoose; Raymond B Winstanley
Journal:  Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent       Date:  2005-09

3.  A clinical evaluation of fixed partial denture impressions.

Authors:  Nachum Samet; Michal Shohat; Alon Livny; Ervin I Weiss
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 3.426

4.  A preliminary survey of impression trays used in the fabrication of fixed indirect restorations.

Authors:  Sonya T Mitchell; Merrie H Ramp; Lance C Ramp; Perng-Ru Liu
Journal:  J Prosthodont       Date:  2009-06-11       Impact factor: 2.752

5.  Treatment recommendations for single-unit crowns: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

Authors:  Michael S McCracken; David R Louis; Mark S Litaker; Helena M Minyé; Rahma Mungia; Valeria V Gordan; Don G Marshall; Gregg H Gilbert
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  2016-08-01       Impact factor: 3.634

6.  A study of the quality of impressions for anterior crowns received at a commercial laboratory.

Authors:  P V Carrotte; R B Winstanley; J R Green
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  1993-04-10       Impact factor: 1.626

7.  Prosthodontic laboratory and curriculum survey. Part III: Fixed prosthodontic laboratory survey.

Authors:  S A Aquilino; T D Taylor
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  1984-12       Impact factor: 3.426

8.  Lessons learned during the conduct of clinical studies in the dental PBRN.

Authors:  Gregg H Gilbert; Joshua S Richman; Valeria V Gordan; D Brad Rindal; Jeffrey L Fellows; Paul L Benjamin; Martha Wallace-Dawson; O Dale Williams
Journal:  J Dent Educ       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 2.264

9.  Dentists in practice-based research networks have much in common with dentists at large: evidence from the Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

Authors:  Sonia K Makhija; Gregg H Gilbert; D Brad Rindal; Paul L Benjamin; Joshua S Richman; Daniel J Pihlstrom
Journal:  Gen Dent       Date:  2009 May-Jun

10.  Concordance between clinical practice and published evidence: findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

Authors:  Wynne E Norton; Ellen Funkhouser; Sonia K Makhija; Valeria V Gordan; James D Bader; D Brad Rindal; Daniel J Pihlstrom; Thomas J Hilton; Julie Frantsve-Hawley; Gregg H Gilbert
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 3.634

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.