Survival Rate of CAD-CAM Endocrowns Performed by Undergraduate Students.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the success of computer-aided design-computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) endocrown restorations of endodontically treated teeth (ETT) performed by supervised undergraduate students. The study also intended to identify possible factors that may lead to failures. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This observational open cohort study was based on clinical data from endocrown restorations performed by residents and undergraduate students in their 4th, 5th, and 6th year from July 2011 to May 2018. The presence of a tooth with an endocrown on the arch was the main criteria used to calculate the survival rate of restored teeth. The quality of the remaining endocrowns was evaluated referring to the FDI criteria. The cases of failure were categorized into either favorable or unfavorable. RESULTS: A total of 343 ETT were restored with endocrowns in 315 patients. Among them, 199 patients encompassing 225 endocrowns were followed during a 56 ± 26 month period. The survival rate of restored teeth was found to be 81.8%, the estimated Kaplan-Meier survival rate being 71.8% at 9 years. Among the 41 failed cases, 32 were favorable (debonding and/or ceramic fractures) and 9 were unfavorable. CONCLUSION: Endocrown restorations of posterior ETT using CAD-CAM technologies could be carried out by undergraduates with a low risk of failure. Teacher supervision could be reinforced, covering all steps of each endocrown procedure in order to avoid failures due to insufficient thickness or loss of retention.

Evaluation of Cerec endocrowns: a preliminary cohort study.

This study aimed to evaluate clinical qualities and evolution on ceramic endocrowns produced with the Cerec 3D (Sirona). Endocrowns were produced in a hospital environment and evaluated according to the FDI criteria on the day of placement and 6 months afterwards. Each item was graded from 1 (good) to 5 (bad). A global score, as well as a score for aesthetics, functioning and biological integration was assessed for each evaluation. During the 6-month evaluation period, the scores were always related to good clinical quality, except for single crown restoration. The scores did not change between the two periods of evaluation.