Recycling of Three Pressable Ceramics With Different Weight Percentage

Condition(s) studied

Investigational drug(s) / intervention(s)

clinical measurements and evaluation: clinical performance of single restorations fabricated for the patients from pressed and repressed ceramics

Study summary

Introduction: Green dentistry, is high-technology approach that reduces the environmental impact of dental practices, improper disposal of dental materials wastes results in environmental hazards.

Aim of the study: This studied will be performed o evaluate the effect of repressing of three different types of pressable ceramics, Ips Emax press, Lisi press and Celtra press with different weight percentages on patient satisfaction, mechanical properties, microstructural features and composition of these pressable ceramics.

Materials \& Methods:

Seventy five ( N=75) pressable ceramic discs will be constructed ,The samples will be divided to three groups (n=25 each) according to types and composition of pressed and repressed ceramics .Group 1: IPS Emax press .Group 2: Gc Lisipress Group 3: Celtrapress . Each group willbe divided into 5 sub-groups (n=5) according to the weight percentage of newly pressed and repressed ceramics. Subgroup A: 100% new ceramics. Subgroup B: 75% new and 25 % repressed ceramic .Subgroup C: 50% new and 50% repressed ceramics. Subgroup D:25%new and 75% repressed ceramics. Subgroup E: 100% repressed ceramics. Biaxial flexural strength will be measured using universal testing machine. X-ray diffraction will be performed to identify the crystalline phases, and a scanning electron microscope will be used to describe microstructural features. Energy dispersive X-ray analysis will be used to evaluate change in composition Also surface hardness will be evaluated. Patient satisfaction, plaque, cervical caries and marginal discoloration will be evaluated in a follow- up of one year (in vivo part).

Eligibility

Primary outcome measure(s)

• Excellent patient satisfaction, good mechanical properties and microstructure of single crown restorations . — 1 year
  Clinical evaluation will be performed according to: \- Modified United States Health Service (USPHS) Ryge Criteria, at base line (1 week), 3, 6 and12 months after cementation.
• Quality and strength of the restoration and — 1 year
  Modified (USPHS) Ryge criteria system was used to evaluate the quality of all crowns. Category Evaluated by Score Criteria Fracture evaluated by Visual inspection with dental explorer Score Alpha (A) No evidence of fracture. Bravo (B) Evidence of fracture Category Evaluated by Score Criteria Fracture evaluated by Visual inspection with dental explorer Score Alpha (A) No evidence of fracture. Bravo (B) Evidence of fracture
• Good oral hygiene and patient satisfaction — 1 year
  he presence of plaque will be evaluated using the Loe and Silness plaque index. Score 0= no plaque the tooth surface is clean. Score 1= The tooth surface appears clean ,but dental plaque can be removed from the gingival third with a sharp explorer Score 2= Plaque is visible along the gingival margin to naked eye (moderate accumulation) Score 3=Large amount of plaque in sulcus - Clinical examination will be performed using a mirror and sharp explorer, radiograph and photograph. . Patient satisfaction will be evaluated using a questionnaire The patient satisfaction: Patient satisfaction of each subgroup will be assessed by using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) which is documented chart in the form of satisfied or unsatisfied. A questionnaire will be used to evaluate restorations at baseline (1 week after cementaton), 3 and 6 months
• excellent marginal integrity — 1 year
  Marginal discoloration evaluated by Visual inspection with mirror at 45 degrees angel Score Alpha (A) No discoloration Bravo (B)Superficial staining (removable, usually localized). Charlie (C)Deep staining (not removable, generalized).

Trial sites (2)

More Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls trials in Egypt

Other trials for the same condition