الفهرس 
ABSTRACTOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 199 |  |  |
| | | from | 199 | | |
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate biocompatibility and bacteria count and typeof Bio HPP crowns veneered with visio-lign versus e.max crowns veneered with e.mx veneering system.
Methodology: Forty-two full coverage crowns were fabricated for maxillary anterior teeth. Scaling and polishing was performed for all the patients one week prior to preparation. Pocket depth was measured using William Periodontal probe and swap from the margins and sulcus was obtained using sterile paper cone. These measurements were repeated after three, six, nine and twelve months respectively. The patients were divided into two groups according to the material group 1(control group) fabricated from IPS e.max crowns and Group2 (intervention group) fabricated from Bio HPP crowns. The preparation was standardized with equi-gingival, chamfer finish line for all teeth. The try-in and provisionization was performed using Cad\Cam (CAM5-S1) machine with software (Exocad). Fabrication of the crowns was performed using lost wax press technique. The restorations were veneered according to manufactures instructions. The restoration surfaces were treated according to the manufacture instruction of each material. Self-adhesive cement (by BISCO) was used for both groups. Biocompatibility (bleeding on brushing) was also evaluated during each recall visit using questionnaire to determine patient satisfaction.
Results: ANOVA was used to compare between the two groups. ; there was no statistically significant difference between mean PD at the two materials’ sides except after 9 as well as 12 months; Bio HPP showed statistically significantly higher mean PD than e.max. Fisher’s exact test showed there was no statistically significant difference between total bacterial counts of the two materials. No statistically significant difference between both groups regarding patient satisfaction (bleeding on brushing).
Conclusions: Both IPS e.max and Bio HPP crowns revealed successful clinical performance from the biological aspect and patient satisfaction. No significant difference between the two materials regarding the bacteria count and type and also the pocket depth, however Bio HPP showed higher significant difference PD e.max after 9 and 12 months. Thus, this study was mostly with and minor against the hypothesis. Therefore careful checking of the surface of the veneering material one year post-cementation is recommended.