header
Image from OpenLibrary

Evaluation of biocompatibility of bio HPP crown veneered with visio-lign compared to lithium disilicate (e.max) crown veneered with e.max veneering system in anterior aesthetic zone : Randomized controlled clinical trial / Esra{u2019}a Mohamed Ali Mraweh Odeh ; Supervised Hesham Alansary , Ahmed Nagiub , Maha Ahmad Taymour

By: Contributor(s): Material type: TextTextLanguage: English Publication details: Cairo : Esra{u2019}a Mohamed Ali Mraweh Odeh , 2020Description: 179 P. : charts , facimiles ; 25cmOther title:
  • دراسة مقارنة توافق النسجة بين مادتى تاج ايماكس و تاج بيواتش بى بى فى الجزء الظاهر الامامى : تقنية الفم الاكلينيكيه العشوائية [Added title page title]
Subject(s): Available additional physical forms:
  • Issued also as CD
Dissertation note: Thesis (Ph.D.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine - Department of Prosthodontics Summary: Aim:To evaluate biocompatibility and bacteria count and typeof Bio HPP crowns veneered with visio-lign versus e.max crowns veneered with e.mx veneering system.Methodology:Forty-two full coverage crowns were fabricated for maxillaryanterior teeth. Scaling and polishing was performed for all the patients one week prior to preparation. Pocket depth was measured using William Periodontal probe and swap from the margins and sulcus was obtained using sterile paper cone.These measurements were repeated after three, six, nine and twelve months respectively. The patients were divided into two groups according to the materialGroup 1(control group) fabricated from IPS e.max crowns and Group2(intervention group) fabricated from Bio HPP crowns. The preparation was standardized with equi-gingival, chamfer finish line for all teeth.The try-in and provisionization was performed using Cad\Cam (CAM5-S1) machinewith software (Exocad). Fabrication of the crowns was performed using lost wax press technique. The restorations were veneered according to manufactures instructions.The restoration surfaces were treated according to the manufacture instruction of each material. Self-adhesive cement (by BISCO) was used for both groups.Biocompatibility (bleeding on brushing) was also evaluated during each recall visit using questionnaireto determine patientsatisfaction Results: ANOVA was used to compare between the twogroups. ; there was no statistically significant difference between mean PD at the two materials{u2019} sides except after 9 as well as 12 months; BioHPP showed statistically significantly higher mean PD than e.max. Fisher{u2019}s exact test showed there was no statistically significant difference between total bacterial counts of the two materials. No statistically significant difference between both groups regarding patient satisfaction (bleeding on brushing)
Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.
Star ratings
    Average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)
Holdings
Item type Current library Home library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Thesis Thesis قاعة الرسائل الجامعية - الدور الاول المكتبة المركزبة الجديدة - جامعة القاهرة Cai01.09.09.Ph.D.2020.Es.E (Browse shelf(Opens below)) Not for loan 01010110082733000
CD - Rom CD - Rom مخـــزن الرســائل الجـــامعية - البدروم المكتبة المركزبة الجديدة - جامعة القاهرة Cai01.09.09.Ph.D.2020.Es.E (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 82733.CD Not for loan 01020110082733000

Thesis (Ph.D.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine - Department of Prosthodontics

Aim:To evaluate biocompatibility and bacteria count and typeof Bio HPP crowns veneered with visio-lign versus e.max crowns veneered with e.mx veneering system.Methodology:Forty-two full coverage crowns were fabricated for maxillaryanterior teeth. Scaling and polishing was performed for all the patients one week prior to preparation. Pocket depth was measured using William Periodontal probe and swap from the margins and sulcus was obtained using sterile paper cone.These measurements were repeated after three, six, nine and twelve months respectively. The patients were divided into two groups according to the materialGroup 1(control group) fabricated from IPS e.max crowns and Group2(intervention group) fabricated from Bio HPP crowns. The preparation was standardized with equi-gingival, chamfer finish line for all teeth.The try-in and provisionization was performed using Cad\Cam (CAM5-S1) machinewith software (Exocad). Fabrication of the crowns was performed using lost wax press technique. The restorations were veneered according to manufactures instructions.The restoration surfaces were treated according to the manufacture instruction of each material. Self-adhesive cement (by BISCO) was used for both groups.Biocompatibility (bleeding on brushing) was also evaluated during each recall visit using questionnaireto determine patientsatisfaction Results: ANOVA was used to compare between the twogroups. ; there was no statistically significant difference between mean PD at the two materials{u2019} sides except after 9 as well as 12 months; BioHPP showed statistically significantly higher mean PD than e.max. Fisher{u2019}s exact test showed there was no statistically significant difference between total bacterial counts of the two materials. No statistically significant difference between both groups regarding patient satisfaction (bleeding on brushing)

Issued also as CD

There are no comments on this title.

to post a comment.