| 000 | 03211cam a2200349 a 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | EG-GiCUC | ||
| 005 | 20250223032921.0 | ||
| 008 | 220217s2021 ua do f m 000 0 eng d | ||
| 040 |
_aEG-GiCUC _beng _cEG-GiCUC |
||
| 041 | 0 | _aeng | |
| 049 | _aDeposite | ||
| 097 | _aPh.D | ||
| 099 | _aCai01.09.09.Ph.D.2021.Ni.M | ||
| 100 | 0 | _aNihal Anwar Mohamed Haffour | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 |
_aMarginal integrity, patient satisfaction, shade matching and gingival health of zirconia reinforced lithium silicate crowns cemented using bioactive cement and adhesive resin cement : _bRandomized clinical trial / _cNihal Anwar Mohamed Haffour ; Supervised Gihan Abdelhady Elnaggar , Eman Ezzat |
| 246 | 1 | 5 |
_a دراسة عشوائية : _bتقييم المسافه الحافيه ورضا المريض وتطابق اللون وصحه اللثه للتيجان الخزفيه المصنعه من ليثيوم سليكيت المدعوم بالزيركونيا باستخدام الاسمنت النشط بيولوجيا واسمنت راتنج لاصق |
| 260 |
_aCairo : _bNihal Anwar Mohamed Haffour, _c2021 |
||
| 300 |
_a130 P . : _bcharts , photographs ; _c25cm |
||
| 502 | _aThesis (Ph.D.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine - Department of Prosthodontics | ||
| 520 | _aAim: The aim of the present study was to assess the effect of cement type, bioactive cement versus adhesive resin cement on the marginal integrity, patient satisfaction, shade matching and gingival health of zirconia reinforced lithium silicate crowns at 3 time intervals, baseline, after 6 months and 1 year. Methodology: Twenty full coverage crowns were fabricated for posterior molar teeth are fabricated from ZLS (suprinty). The patients were divided into two groups in accordance with the type of cement; Group I (the control group) for adhesive resin cement; and Group II (the intervention group) for bioactive cement. Standardized the preparation (according to the guidelines) deep chamfer finish line for all teeth. The restoration surfaces were treated according to the manufacture instructions of each cement. Teeth were evaluated at baseline (directly after crown cementation), six months; and one year after the cementation of the crown. Marginal integrity was evaluated by microscope digital handheld light microscope (Celestron 5 Megapixel Resolution, USA) as well as shade match was evaluated by Spectrophotometer (easy shade) gingival health will be also evaluated by gingival index visually score (0-3), Patient satisfaction by survey. Results: There was statistically significant difference between bioactive cement and adhesive resin cement in marginal gap sealing p (0.009*) and gingival index p (0.05*).There is no significant difference in shade matching (xE) and patient satisfaction between both cement | ||
| 530 | _aIssued also as CD | ||
| 650 | 0 | _aProsthodontics | |
| 653 | 4 | _aMarginal integrity | |
| 653 | 4 | _aPatient satisfaction | |
| 653 | 4 | _aShade matching | |
| 700 | 0 |
_aEman Ezzat , _eSupervising |
|
| 700 | 0 |
_aGihan Abdelhady Elnaggar , _eSupervising |
|
| 856 | _uhttp://172.23.153.220/th.pdf | ||
| 905 |
_aAmira _eCataloger |
||
| 905 |
_aNazla _eRevisor |
||
| 942 |
_2ddc _cTH |
||
| 999 |
_c84258 _d84258 |
||