This study is to evaluate and compare CAD/CAM zircon space maintainer and conventional metal of band and loop space maintainers in terms of plaque deposits and gingival health and, the success rate of the appliances in terms of: survival time, cement loss and appliance breakage. And to compare both appliances in terms of patient satisfaction. This study consists of two parts: in vivo part (split mouth RCT) and in vitro part: In vivo study: Its sample size was found to be (36) cases (i.e. 18 case per group). Sample size calculation was performed using G\*Power version 3.1.9.7 Sample size will be increased by about 10% to compensate for the drop-out. In this in vivo study split mouth will be randomly divided into two groups: Group 1: Conventional metal band and loop space maintainer Group 2: CAD/CAM zircon band and loop space maintainer In vitro study: its sample size was found to be (24) samples (i.e. 8 samples per group). Sample size calculation was performed using G\*Power version 3.1.9.7 Sample size will be increased by about 10% to compensate for the drop-out. Grouping: The zirconia specimen divided randomly into three groups according to type of cements: Group 1: Self-adhesive resin cement Group 2: Resin-modified glass ionomer cement Group 3: Universal bioactive cement
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Clinical success: Evaluate and compare CAD/CAM zircon space maintainer and conventional metal of band and loop space maintainers in terms of plaque deposits (Plaque index)
Timeframe: Up to 12 months
Clinical success: Evaluate and compare CAD/CAM zircon space maintainer and conventional metal of band and loop space maintainers in terms of Gingival health, by assessing the gingival index.
Timeframe: up to 12 months
The success rate of appliances in terms of survival time.
Timeframe: Up to 12 months