Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 2, 2025
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF NOVEL 3D PRINTED RESIN CROWNS VERSUS DIRECT CELLULOID CROWNS IN RESTORING PULP TREATED
Mohammed Nour Al-Halabi1, Nada Bshara1, Jihad Abou Nassar1
1Dental College, Damascus, University, Damascus, Syria.
Purpose:
The primary objective of this randomized controlled trial is to compare the clinical impact of using crowns manufactured by 3D printing and direct composite celluloid crowns as a final restoration for primary molars after pulpotomy procedures.
Material And Methods:
Fifty primary molars selected from the children needing treatment at the Pediatric Dentistry Clinic at Damascus University Faculty of Dentistry were randomized by using SPSS and divided into 2 groups based on fabricating methods: Group A: 3D-printed crowns with the utilization of biocompatible light-curing composite, and Group B: Crowns were made directly using composite carried out by prefabricated celluloid crown. The evaluation team assessed the crowns in each group using the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria for retention, marginal integrity, and gingival health at baseline, followed by 3 follow-up sessions at 3, 6, and 12 months.
Results:
Chi-Square statistical testing was accomplished using SPSS software to compare crown failure among the experimental group. At the 12-month follow-up, no statistically significant differences were noted between groups (P = .157). For gingival health assessment, the Mann-Whitney test was used. No statistically significant differences were recorded between the 2 groups in the third follow-up month (P = .058); However, a significant difference was noted in the 6th and 12th follow-up months (P = .023, P = .000). For marginal integrity comparison, Mann-Whitney statistical Test was used for the third, sixth, and twelfth-month follow-up sessions. A significant difference was noted in all follow-up periods (3-6-12 months) between the direct and indirect crowns (P = .025, P = .025, P = .002, respectively).
Conclusion:
The 2 types of experimental crowns (direct composite celluloid crowns and the resin crowns manufactured via 3D printer) were suitable esthetic alternatives for restoring pulp-treated primary molars with a notably higher rate of retention with direct composite crowns. 3D-printed resin crowns, however, portrayed superior gingival health in addition to greater marginal integrity.
