Michael S McCracken1, Mark S Litaker1, Alexandra E S Thomson2, Alan Slootsky3,4, Gregg H Gilbert1. 1. Department of Clinical and Community Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. 2. Private Practice of Dentistry, Washington, DC. 3. Department of Prosthodontics, Nova Southeastern University, College of Dental Medicine, Davie, FL. 4. Private Practice of Dentistry, Pompano Beach, FL.
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.
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.
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
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
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