Purpose: To compare marginal adaptation, fracture, retention, shade matching, and patient satisfaction between lithium disilicate (e.max) and hybrid nano-ceramic (Grandio) CAD/CAM endocrowns.
Methods: A total of 20 CAD/CAM endocrowns (10 e.max (E group) and 10 Grandio (G group)) were randomly inserted in 20 participants. Shade selection, cavity preparation, and digital impression were performed. Then, restorations were designed, milled, and checked clinically before cementation using resin cement. The restorations underwent baseline and annual evaluations for three years using Modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria, along with patient satisfaction. With a p-value of (p=0.05), the data obtained was statistically evaluated with IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows.
Results: Regarding marginal adaptation, retention and fracture, all restorations in both groups had Alpha scores; at baseline, and during the follow-ups. While for shade matching and patient satisfaction, regarding the changes by time within the E group all restorations revealed (100%) Alpha scores and satisfaction respectively at base line, and during the follow-ups. While in G group, all restorations revealed (100%) Alpha scores and (100%) satisfaction at baseline, after 12, and 24 months. However, after 36 months, Alpha scores and satisfaction insignificantly decreased to (80%) while Bravo scores and unsatisfaction insignificantly increased to (20%) as P= 0.31 with 0.51 effect size.
Conclusion: Lithium disilicate endocrowns offer higher clinical outcomes in terms of shade matching and patient satisfaction than Grandio endocrowns, which offer a good clinical solution for the teeth that have undergone endodontic treatment. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04757428).