METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted using consecutive sampling. Each participant went through screening using the PUFA index, orthopantomography assessment using PAI, and comprehensive clinical examination to derive pulpal and apical diagnoses. The outcomes were dichotomized. Reliability was estimated using the Cohen kappa coefficient. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was compared using the chi-square test.
RESULTS: A total of 165 participants were examined, 98.2% of whom had a decayed, missing, or filled tooth index >0. Of 4115 teeth assessed, 16.2% (n = 666) were diagnosed with pulpal disease and 7.9% (n = 325) with periapical disease. Interexaminer reliability for the PUFA index and PAI was 0.87 and 0.80, respectively. Intraexaminer reliability was 0.83 and 0.76 for the PUFA index and 0.75 and 0.72 for PAI. For pulpal diagnosis, the sensitivity of the PUFA index and PAI was 67.6% and 41.7%, respectively; the specificity of the PUFA index and PAI was 99.8% and 99.2%, respectively. For apical diagnosis, the sensitivity of the PUFA index and PAI was 87.7% and 75.4%, respectively; the specificity of the PUFA index and PAI was 95.4% and 98.4%, respectively. The PUFA index is statistically more accurate than PAI for pulpal diagnosis and apical diagnosis (P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The PUFA index can be used in screening for pulpal and periapical diseases with some limitations.
METHODS: Thirty-six mandibular premolar teeth with an average surface area of 64.49 mm2 were prepared to receive CAM/CAM fabricated endocrowns. Samples were divided randomly and equally into groups of lithium disilicate with 2 mm intracoronal depth (LD2), lithium disilicate with 4 mm intracoronal depth (LD4), polymer infiltrated ceramic network with 2 mm intracoronal depth (PICN2) and polymer infiltrated ceramic network with 4 mm intracoronal depth (PICN4). All endocrowns were cemented using ParaCore resin cement with 14N pressure and cured for 20 seconds. Fifty measurements of absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD) were done using a stereomicroscope after cementation. After 24 hours, all samples were subjected to thermocycling before the retention test. This involved using a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min and applying a load of 500N. The maximum force to detach the crown was recorded in newtons and the mode of failure was identified.
RESULTS: Two-way ANOVA revealed that the AMD for PICN was statistically significantly better than lithium disilicate (p=0.01). No statistically significant difference was detected in the AMD between the two intracoronal depths (p=0.72). PICN and endocrowns with 4 mm intracoronal depth had statistically significant better retention (p<0.05). 72.22% of the sample suffered from cohesive failures and 10 LD endocrowns suffered adhesive failures.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, we found that different materials and intracoronal depths can indeed influence the retention of CAD/CAM fabricated endocrowns. Based on the controlled setting findings, PICN was found to have better retention and better marginal adaptation than similar lithium disilicate premolar endocrowns.