The aim of the present study is to compare between 3D-printed crowns and prefabricated zirconia crowns for restoring pulpally-treated primary molars regarding the following aspects: 1. In vivo: Evaluate the clinical outcome of 3D printed crowns in comparison to prefabricated zirconia crowns in pulpally-treated primary molars as well as parent satisfaction. 2. In vitro: Comparative analysis of fracture resistance and marginal gap of 3D printed crowns and prefabricated zirconia crowns
Age range
4 Years – 7 Years
Sex
ALL
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Bring these to your next appointment. They're a starting point for a shared conversation — not a sign you qualify or a recommendation to enrol.
Generated to help you prepare — always confirm anything about your own eligibility and care with the study team and your doctor.
The trial coordinator is the person who runs the study day to day. These cover the practical side — logistics, costs, and what taking part would actually mean for your life. The study team confirms whether you meet the criteria; these are questions to ask, not a sign you qualify.
A starting point for the conversation — always confirm anything about your own eligibility, costs, and care with the study team and your doctor.
Gingival health (gingival index)
Timeframe: 1 year follow up for vivo part only
plaque index
Timeframe: 1year follow up
Marginal integrity
Timeframe: 1yeat follow up
crown retention
Timeframe: one year follow up
In vitro marginal gap
Timeframe: Immediately after samples preparation
in vitro fracture resistance
Timeframe: Immediately after samples preparation