Clinical Research Associates
Porcelain-Metal Full Crowns - Feb. '99
Results of 1 Year Evaluation - Finesse(compared with Artglass, belleGlass HP, Targis System, and ceramic onlays)
| Contents: | 1. Crown Materials Studied | 5. Full Statistical Report (35 pg.) (Acrobat Reader Format (.pdf), 1.5 min. to download) |
| 2. Comparison of Performance Characteristics | 6. Full Methods | |
| 3. Overall Ranking | 7. CRA's Wear Quantification Method | |
| 4. Summary of Results |
A. Crown Materials Studied
Analyses were performed on direct and indirect evaluations of the following materials:
|
Material |
Adhesive and Luting Materials |
Company |
|
Finesse |
ProBond / Advance |
Dentsply Ceramco |
|
Artglass |
Denthesive II / Twinlook Cement / Artglass Connector |
Heraeus Kulzer |
|
belleGlass HP |
Nexus Adhesive and Nexus Universal Luting System |
Kerr |
|
Ceramic onlays |
Various |
Various |
|
Targis System |
original Syntac / Variolink Cement |
Ivoclar-Vivadent |
Ceramic onlays consisted of Celay Vita, Cerinate, Dicor, and Mirage restorations restoring 1 or more cusps.
B. Comparison of Performance Characteristics - Statistical Differences
Materials in this study were grouped together because of their similarity in clinical use. Meta Analysis principles were used to justify combining the data from this study with multiple previous CRA clinical studies. Statistical analyses were performed on 11 characteristics at initial placement, 6 months, and 1 year. Ceramic onlays were not recalled at 6 months and were thus excluded from 6 month analyses. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Fisher’s Protected LSD were used to analyze scale data. Fisher’s Exact Test was used to analyze percentage data. In the event of a significant overall Fisher’s Exact Test, a series of 2xn Fisher’s Exact Tests was run to detect pairwise differences. Analyses for 1 year data showed:
|
Characteristic |
Analysis Used |
Significant Differences? |
Finesse better |
Finesse worse |
|
Breakage |
Fisher’s Exact Test |
Yes |
x |
|
|
Color Match |
ANOVA/Fisher’s LSD |
Yes |
x |
|
|
Debond from Prep |
Fisher’s Exact Test |
Yes |
x |
|
|
Interproximal Contact |
ANOVA/Fisher’s LSD |
Yes |
x |
|
|
Localized Separation from Substructure |
Fisher’s Exact Test |
Yes |
x |
|
|
Occlusal Contact Pitting |
Fisher’s Exact Test |
Yes |
Incomplete |
|
|
Sensitivity |
Fisher’s Exact Test |
Yes |
- |
- |
|
Surface Smoothness Compared to Enamel |
ANOVA/Fisher’s LSD |
Yes |
Incomplete |
|
|
Wear |
ANOVA/Fisher’s LSD |
Yes |
x |
|
|
Caries |
Fisher’s Exact Test |
No |
- |
- |
|
Gingival Health |
Fisher’s Exact Test |
No |
- |
- |
Tests for Dentist, Molar, and Arch differences were performed for characteristics analyzed using ANOVA. Differences among dentists were seen for Color match. Differences among molars were seen for Surface smoothness compared to enamel, with the smoothest surfaces seen on second molars. There were no differences in arches.
C. Overall Ranking
To produce an overall ranking, the grading scales of all characteristics were first standardized. This was done to make grading scales comparable. Grades were standardized to a grading scale with a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. This allows materials to be compared relative to each other, but not to any absolute grading scale. In the table below, a material with a lower mean is better.
D. Summary of Results
Examining individual characteristics revealed significant differences among the materials in the 9 characteristics shaded in the above chart. At initial placement, Artglass and Finesse performed significantly better than the Ceramic onlays across all characteristics. However, at 6 months and 1 year, no material consistently performed better or worse than the other materials across all characteristics.