Table 2 General data of the three included trials: study design, type of fixed reconstruction, number of investigated subjects, and defined outcome(s)
From: The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review
No. | Study (year) | Study design | Type of reconstruction | Number of subjects | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Batisse et al. (2014) | RCT - crossover design - double-blinded - without follow-up | A1. Tooth-borne crowns - n = 10: monolithic LS2 - n = 10: metal-ceramic (gold-alloy) | 8 patients [10 crowns]: randomized treatment sequence | Esthetics: - patients & operators preference. |
2. | Batson et al. (2014) | RCT - 3-armed design - non-blinded - without follow-up | A1. Tooth-borne crowns - n = 10: monolithic LS2 - n = 10: monolithic ZrO2 - n = 12: metal-ceramic (gold-alloy) | 22 patients [32 crowns]: 3 randomized groups | Marginal discrepancy / precision: - micro-computed tomography; Quality of soft tissue response: - gingival crevicular fluid rates. |
3. | Joda & Bragger (2016) | RCT - 2-armed design - non-blinded - without follow-up | B1. Implant-supported crowns - n = 10: monolithic LS2 - n = 10: ZrO2 coping veneered | 20 patients [20 implant-crowns]: 2 randomized groups | Feasibility testing; Time-efficiency: - clinical & technical workflows. |