{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018361581920903956, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01977401129943503, 'mean_word_length': 5.187772925764192, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Comparative clinical evaluation of the prosthetic treatment quality of molars restored by chairside manufactured CAD/CAM crowns].

AIM
A comparative clinical evaluation of the results of prosthetic treatment with chairside CAD/CAM crowns for molars made from hybrid ceramics VITA Enamic, blocks of feldspatic ceramics VITABlocs Mark II, blocks of leucite glass IPS Empress CAD.


MATERIAL AND METHODS
The study involved 30 patients aged from 19 to 60 years old with defects in hard tissues of molars. For clinical evaluation we used 'Clinical criteria for evaluation of direct and indirect restorations' developed by FDI in 2007, which included the assessment of several aesthetic, functional and biological parameters. We also included 2 additional criteria indicators: the condition of the antagonist tooth and the hygienic condition of the prosthesis in comparison with the hygiene of natural teeth. All patients were randomized into 3 groups of 10 people. After the treatment the clinical quality assessment was carried out in the following time intervals: 30 minutes, 1, 6, 12, 18, 24 months after the fixation of the crown.


RESULTS
Clinical evaluation of the results of prosthetic treatment of 30 patients with chairside CAD/CAM crowns made from three different materials did not reveal any significant difference in the clinical criteria for evaluation of direct and indirect restorations within 24 months.