A one-year clinical evaluation of IPS E.Max press versus CERASMART endocrowns in anterior endodontically treated teeth: A randomised clinical

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare gross fracture, patient satisfaction and marginal adaptation of anterior endocrowns restoring endodontically treated anterior teeth fabricated from IPS e.max press and CERASMART hybrid ceramics. Material and Methods: A total of 24 patients were selected to receive an aesthetic endocrown for an upper tooth in the aesthetic zone (central incisor, lateral and canine).The 24 patients were divided into two groups (n= 12 each), where Group 1, the control group, received an IPS e.max press anterior endocrown and Group 2, theintervention group, received a CERASMART anterior endocrown. After cementation all patients were followed up at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. During each followup examination, United States Public Health Servicecriteria were adopted for clinical evaluation to score margin integrity and gross fracture. Questionnaires were also used to evaluate the patients’ satisfaction and potential postoperative discomfort. The X2 or Fisher’s Exact test were used to compare qualitative variables in the two groups and Friedman’s test was used to study the changes over time within each group. The significance level was set at P≤ 0.05. Results: With regard to gross fracture and marginal integrity, there was no statistically significant difference at any time interval between IPS e.max press and CERASMART endocrowns. All patients reported being satisfied with their restorations until the end of the follow-up period. Conclusions: CERASMART anterior endocrowns provided a promising treatment modality compared to IPS e.max press anterior endocrowns.