Clinical Evaluation of CAD/CAM Ceramic Endocrown Versus Prefabricated Zirconia Crown in the Restoration of Pulpotomized Primary Molars: A Two-Year Spilt-Mouth Randomized Controlled Trial

Objectives The current trial aimed to compare lithium disilicate (LS2) endocrowns' clinical performance, gingival health, and parental satisfaction to those of prefabricated zirconia crowns (ZCs) over a 24-month of follow-up. Materials and Methods This study designed as a spilt-mouth randomized controlled trial. A total of 88 pulpotomized mandibular second primary molars of 44 children were assigned into two equal groups. Forty-four molars were restored with prefabricated primary ZCs (control group) and the same number were restored with LS2 endocrown (intervention group). Clinical performance and gingival status were evaluated using a modified United States Public Health Service criterion, and plaque and gingival indices. Parental satisfaction was assessed using a 5-point Likert-scale questionnaire. Statistical Analysis Paired data were analyzed using McNemar's test, a statistical test used on paired nominal data, and paired t -tests. The significance level was set to 5% at 95% confidence interval. Results Both restorations showed comparable gingival health status over the follow-ups. Marginal adaptation of the endocrowns and ZCs at the end of follow-up was 95.5 and 90.9%, respectively ( p = 0.68). For marginal integrity and discoloration, both restorations showed similar results at the follow-ups. The overall parental satisfaction of both groups was statistically insignificant ( p = 0.07). However, parents were more satisfied with the endocrown color over that of the ZC ( p < 0.05). Conclusion Endocrowns' clinical performance and gingival health were comparable to those of ZCs. For both restorations, parental satisfaction was nearly similar except for the color that showed an advantage in favor of the endocrowns.