04 February 2024 : Database Analysis
Factors Influencing Dentists' Choice of Restorative Materials for Single-Tooth Crowns: A Survey Among Saudi Practitioners
Ali Robaian1ABEFG*, Nawaf Munawir Alotaibi2BFG, Aljowhara Khaled Allaboon3BG, Dana Saleh AlTuwaijri4BDG, Abdullah Fahad Aljarallah5ABFG, Rola Salman Alshehri6BC, Aljawharah Ali Alabsi7BG, Mubashir Baig Mirza
1ACDEF, Mohammed M. Al Moaleem8CDE
DOI: 10.12659/MSM.942723
Med Sci Monit 2024; 30:e942723
Table 5 Comparison of selection of dental crown materials between supra- and subgingival preparation margins of various abutment teeth.
| Tooth/ prep margin | n | Classic glass ceramics feldspathic/leucite reinforced | Lithium X silicate ceramics | Monolith zirconia | Layered zirconia | Pa | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lithium di silicate | Zirconia reinforced lithium silicate ceramics | ||||||
| #16 Supragingival | 538 | 28 (5.2%) | 74 (13.8%) | 203 (37.7%) | 159 (29.6%) | 74 (13.8%) | |
| #16 Subgingival | 493 | 22 (4.5%) | 53 (10.8%) | 130 (26.4%) | 194 (39.4%) | 94 (19.1%) | |
| #11 Supragingival | 716 | 166 (23.2%) | 304 (42.5%) | 136 (19.0%) | 57 (8.0%) | 53 (7.4%) | 0.0355sig |
| #11 Subgingival | 717 | 149 (20.8%) | 307 (42.8%) | 120 (16.7%) | 92 (12.8%) | 49 (6.8%) | |
| #34 Supragingival | 627 | 30 (4.8%) | 137 (21.9%) | 156 (24.9%) | 203 (32.4%) | 101 (16.1%) | 0.0282sig |
| #34 Subgingival | 612 | 57 (9.3%) | 128 (20.9%) | 139 (22.7%) | 203 (33.2%) | 85 (13.9%) | |
| #36 Supragingival | 534 | 17 (3.2%) | 56 (10.5%) | 108 (20.2%) | 260 (48.7%) | 93 (17.4%) | 0.2650ns |
| #36 Subgingival | 509 | 24 (4.7%) | 42 (8.3%) | 118 (23.2%) | 228 (44.8%) | 97 (19.1%) | |
| n – total; a Chi square test with significance at p≤0.05; ns – non significant; sig – significant; vhs – very highly significant. | |||||||