Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this in vivo study was to investigate whether the less invasive approach (reduced thickness of the restoration) will result in a comparable risk of failure and similar aesthetic results, compared to conventional layered full porcelain crowns, and can, therefore, be used as a good alternative. Material and Methods: The tested ceramic was lithium-disilicate ceramic (IPS e.max). Forty-four patients with endodontically treated premolars or molars were randomized into two groups and provided with single crowns. One group received conventional all-ceramic crowns made from a lithium-disilicate core and hand-veneered aesthetic ceramic, while another group received full-contoured lithium-disilicate ceramic crowns with reduced wall thickness than manufactures recommendations. The teeth for conventional crowns were prepared with 1 mm rounded shoulder and 2 mm occlusal reduction, while teeth for monolithic crowns were prepared with 0.6 mm wide rounded shoulder and 1 mm occlusal reduction. All crowns were prepared by the same clinician and manufactured in the same laboratory by the same technician. The survival and aesthetics of the crowns were assessed by the independent clinician. Apart from this, patients’ aesthetic satisfaction was evaluated. The assessment was double blind as both the examiner and the patients did not know which type of crown was provided. The observation period was 36 months. Survival of the crowns was assessed using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria and aesthetics and participants’ aesthetic satisfaction with the crowns was evaluated using a visual analogue scale. Results: The one-year survival rate for layered crowns was 100% and for monolithic crowns 95.5%. The median patients’ aesthetic satisfaction with both crowns was 100%. Conclusions: The results indicate similar one-year survival rate of reduced-thickness monolithic lithium-disilicate crowns and conventional veneered crowns. Differences with patients’ satisfaction with the aesthetics of both crowns were not statistically significant and it can be said that the patients’ aesthetic satisfaction was the same for both crowns.