الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 219 |  |  |
| | | from | 219 | | |
Abstract
Restoration of pulptomized primary molars has always been a challenge for pediatric dentists. Stainless steel crowns are considered the gold standard. However, their metallic appearance has led to their rejection by many parents and patients. Prefabricated zirconia crowns have been introduced as an alternative because of their better esthetics.
With the introduction of adhesive dentistry, more conservative approaches have been considered such as endocrowns. Endocrowns are partial coverage restorations usually made of ceramics using CAD/CAM technology. Biomimetic materials as composites are now preferred because of their similarity to the natural tooth structure. Composite can now be used with 3D-printing, which is the new era of digital dentistry.
The aim of the present study was to compare between 3D-printed microfilled hybrid composite endocrowns and prefabricated zirconia crowns in restoring pulpally-treated primary molars regarding the esthetic, functional and biological clinical performance using FDI criteria at 3, 6 and 12 months. The in-vitro part aimed to compare the fracture resistance and marginal gap of both restorations.
For the in-Vivo part of the study, thirty vital mandibular primary molars were randomly allocated into two equal groups. group A was treated with formocresol pulpotomy followed by restoration with prefabricated zirconia crown cemented by packable glass ionomer cement. group B was treated with formocresol pulpotomy followed by restoration with microfilled hybrid 3D-printed endocrowns cemented with self-adhesive resin cement. All teeth were clinically assessed by two co-investigators at 3, 6 and 12 months using FDI criteria including esthetic, functional and biological criteria.
For the in-Vitro part of the study, twenty extracted teeth were selected and randomly divided into two groups; group A received zirconia crown after pulpotomy and group B received 3D-printed microfilled hybrid composite endocrowns. Marginal gap was measured using Dino-lite digital microscope. Restorations were then cemented and imbedded in self-cure acrylic resin. Fracture resistance test was then performed using universal testing machine.
The results of the study showed no significant difference between the esthetic, functional and biological success of the two restorations. No significant difference was observed between the total success rate of both restorations. The results also showed no significant difference in the mean survival time between the two restorations.
The in-vitro study results showed no significant difference in the fracture resistance between the two restorations. However, a statistically significant difference was found between the two restorations with zirconia crowns having higher values than endocrowns.