CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2021; 15(03): 463-468
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1721905
Original Article

Clinical Performance of Two Types of Primary Molar Indirect Crowns Fabricated by 3D Printer and CAD/CAM for Rehabilitation of Large Carious Primary Molars

Mohammed Nour Al-Halabi
1   Pediatric Dentistry Department, Dental College, Damascus University, Al-Mazzeh Street, Damascus, Syria
,
Nada Bshara
1   Pediatric Dentistry Department, Dental College, Damascus University, Al-Mazzeh Street, Damascus, Syria
,
Jihad Abou Nassar
2   Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental College, Damascus University, Damascus, Syria
,
3   Department of Oral Rehabilitation, James B. Edwards College of Dental Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, United States
,
Charline K. Rizk
4   Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Dental Public Health, Lebanese University, School of Dentistry, Beirut, Lebanon
› Author Affiliations
Funding None.

Abstract

Objectives This randomized clinical trial aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes of two types of esthetic crowns fabricated using a three-dimensional (3D) dental printer and computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) system as an alternative full-coronal restoration for extensively carious pulp-treated primary molars.

Materials and Methods Randomization was done for 50 lower primary molars in 50 child patients, split into two groups based on the fabrication method used: Group A: CAD/CAM crowns using polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) blocks and Group B: 3D dental printed crowns using GC photopolymer resin. All crowns were evaluated at baseline and at 3rd, 6th, and 12th months using the U.S. Public Health Service criteria for gingival health, retention, and marginal integrity for both groups.

Statistical Analysis The survival rate of 3D-printable crowns was 84% compared with 80% survival rate using CAD/CAM fabricated crowns at the end of the 12th-month follow-up. No statistically significant differences were noted in restoration failure. In the evaluation of gingival health between the two groups’ follow-up times, no statistically significant differences were noted at the 3rd- and 6th-month follow-ups, yet at the 12th month, statistically significant differences were noted (p = 0.022) when comparing gingival health. No statistically significant differences were noted between the two groups when comparing marginal integrity scores in all the follow-up periods.

Conclusion Resin crowns fabricated via 3D dental printer and PMMA crowns fabricated using CAD/CAM are acceptable esthetic choices in restoring pulp-treated primary molars with great marginal integrity and crowns retention. 3D-printed resin crowns showed less cementing failure and performed better regarding gingival response compared with PMMA crowns.



Publication History

Article published online:
03 February 2021

© 2021. European Journal of Dentistry. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 
  • References

  • 1 Kindelan SA, Day P, Nichol R, Willmott N, Fayle SA. British Society of Paediatric Dentistry. UK National Clinical Guidelines in Paediatric Dentistry: stainless steel preformed crowns for primary molars. Int J Paediatr Dent 2008; 18 (Suppl. 01) 20-28
  • 2 Bell SJ, Morgan AG, Marshman Z, Rodd HD. Child and parental acceptance of preformed metal crowns. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2010; 11 (05) 218-224
  • 3 US Department of Health and Human Services, 2000. National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research. Oral health in America: a report of the Surgeon General. Rockville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services
  • 4 Roberts JF. The open-face stainless steel crown for primary molars. ASDC J Dent Child 1983; 50 (04) 262-263
  • 5 Ram D, Fuks AB, Eidelman E. Long-term clinical performance of esthetic primary molar crowns. Pediatr Dent 2003; 25 (06) 582-584
  • 6 Abdulhadi B, Abdullah M, Alaki S, Alamoudi N, Attar M. Clinical evaluation between zirconia crowns and stainless steel crowns in primary molars teeth. J Pediatr Dent 2017;5:21–27. Doi:10.4103/jpd.jpd_21_17
  • 7 Fazel S, Geddes JR, Kushel M. The health of homeless people in high-income countries: descriptive epidemiology, health consequences, and clinical and policy recommendations. Lancet 2014; 384 (9953) 1529-1540
  • 8 van Noort R. The future of dental devices is digital. Dent Mater 2012; 28 (01) 3-12
  • 9 Aiem E, Smaïl-Faugeron V, Muller-Bolla M. Aesthetic preformed paediatric crowns: systematic review. Int J Paediatr Dent 2017; 27 (04) 273-282
  • 10 Borges AFS, Correr GM, Sinhoreti MAC, Consani S, Sobrinho LC, Rontani RMP. Compressive strength recovery by composite onlays in primary teeth. Substrate treatment and luting agent effects. J Dent 2006; 34 (07) 478-484
  • 11 Collares K, Corrêa MB, Laske M. et al. A practice-based research network on the survival of ceramic inlay/onlay restorations. Dent Mater 2016; 32 (05) 687-694
  • 12 Tahayeri A, Morgan M, Fugolin AP. et al. 3D printed versus conventionally cured provisional crown and bridge dental materials. Dent Mater 2018; 34 (02) 192-200
  • 13 Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med 2010; 8: 18
  • 14 Frankl SN, Shiere FR, Fogels HR. Should the parent remain with the child in the dental operatory? J Dent Child 1962;29:150–163
  • 15 Fuks AB, Ram D, Eidelman E. Clinical performance of esthetic posterior crowns in primary molars: a pilot study. Pediatr Dent 1999; 21 (07) 445-448
  • 16 Barnes DM, Blank LW, Gingell JC, Gilner PP. A clinical evaluation of a resin-modified. Glass ionomer restorative material. J Am Dent Assoc 1995; 126 (09) 1245-1253
  • 17 Salama AA. Zirconia crowns versus pre-veneered stainless steel crowns in primary anterior teeth a retrospective study of clinical performance and parental satisfaction. Egypt Dent J 2018;64(4):3075–3084. Doi:10.21608/edj.2018.78283
  • 18 Löe H. The gingival index, the plaque index and the retention index systems. J Periodontol 1967; 38 (06) 610-616
  • 19 Atieh M. Stainless steel crown versus modified open-sandwich restorations for primary molars: a 2-year randomized clinical trial. Int J Paediatr Dent 2008; 18 (05) 325-332
  • 20 Shah PV, Lee JY, Wright JT. Clinical success and parental satisfaction with anterior preveneered primary stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent 2004; 26 (05) 391-395
  • 21 Mourouzis P, Arhakis A, Tolidis K. Computer-aided design and manufacturing crown on primary molars: an innovative case report. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2019; 12 (01) 76-79
  • 22 Abduo J, Lyons K, Bennamoun M. Trends in computer-aided manufacturing in prosthodontics: a review of the available streams. Int J Dent 2014; 2014: 783948
  • 23 Mörmann WH, Bindl A, Lüthy H, Rathke A. Effects of preparation and luting system on all-ceramic computer-generated crowns. Int J Prosthodont 1998; 11 (04) 333-339
  • 24 Scherrer SS, de Rijk WG, Belser UC, Meyer J-M. Effect of cement film thickness on the fracture resistance of a machinable glass-ceramic. Dent Mater 1994; 10 (03) 172-177
  • 25 Bindl A, Lüthy H, Mörmann WH. Strength and fracture pattern of monolithic CAD/CAM-generated posterior crowns. Dent Mater 2006; 22 (01) 29-36
  • 26 Randall RC. Preformed metal crowns for primary and permanent molar teeth: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent 2002; 24 (05) 489-500
  • 27 Lee B-C, Jung G-Y, Kim D-J, Han J-S. Initial bacterial adhesion on resin, titanium and zirconia in vitro. J Adv Prosthodont 2011; 3 (02) 81-84
  • 28 Souza J, Mota R, Sordi MB, Passoni B, Benfatti C, Magini R. Biofilm formation on different materials used in oral rehabilitation. Brazilian Dental J 2016;27 (2):141–147
  • 29 Azari A, Nikza S. The evolution of rapid prototyping in dentistry: A review. Rapid Prototyping J 2009;15(3):216–225 doi:10.1108/13552540910961946