# An 18‐Month Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Evaluating the Clinical Success of IPS e.max Conventional Crowns and Endocrowns in Extensively Restored Molars

## TL;DR

This study compared the 18-month performance of two dental restoration methods in molars and found both to be highly successful with high patient satisfaction.

## Contribution

The study provides new clinical evidence on the long-term success of IPS e.max endocrowns versus conventional crowns in molar restorations.

## Key findings

- Both conventional crowns and endocrowns showed 100% clinical success over 18 months.
- Adhesive failure occurred more frequently in the endocrown group compared to the conventional crown group.
- Patient satisfaction with aesthetics and comfort was 100% for both restoration types.

## Abstract

This RCT study aimed to investigate the clinical performance of IPS e.max endocrowns as an alternative option compared to conventional crowns to restore damaged molar teeth after an 18‐month follow‐up.

A sample of 30 patients with 40 molars, who needed a single‐tooth restoration, was enrolled to receive either a conventional crown (n = 20) or an endocrown (n = 20). After molar preparation, all crowns were manufactured with the IPS e.max press system, then cemented using dual‐cure resin. All crowns were assessed using the modified United States Public Health Service criteria (USPHS) at baseline, 6, 12, and 18 months following placement. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using a questionnaire. Statistical analyses were performed using Mann‐Whitney U and Friedman tests (95% confidence interval).

All teeth in the conventional crown group and endocrown group showed 100% clinical success with no failure at 6, 12, and 18 months after placement in terms of marginal adaptation, contact points, and surface texture. No significant difference was found between endocrowns and conventional crowns in adhesive failure at 6 months (p = 0.075), 12 months (p = 0.317), and 18 months (p = 1.000). 100% of patients were very satisfied with the esthetics and comfort of the prosthesis. The function percentage was 93.3%.

Both restorative options are durable and maintain their integrity. Adhesive failure occurred in a notable number of cases in the endocrown group compared to the conventional crown group. Patient satisfaction was high with both restoration types.