A Comparative Study on the Efficacy of Conservative Restorative Techniques versus Full Coverage Prosthetics in Restoring Severely Damaged Teeth

Maneesha Das ¹, Charan Teja Bobba ², Ajay Kumar Dogra ³, Waleed Ali F Alshadidi⁴, Faris Mohammed R Alqahtani⁵, Kanak Waghmare⁶, Ritik Kashwani⁷

¹Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Institute of Dental Sciences, Siksha 'O' Anusandhan deemed to be University, K8 Kalinga Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751003, Odisha, India
².DDS, MHA, BDS, Dentist, Massachusetts, USA
³Assistant Professor, Department of Healthcare Management UIAMS, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
⁴.BDS, Mazayalian Dental Complex Clinic, Abha, Saudi Arabia
⁵General practitioner, Saudi Dent Private Clinic, Abha, Saudi Arabia,
⁶Undergraduate, Sharad Pawar Dental College and Hospital, DMIHER, Sawangi Wardha, Maharastra, India
⁷Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, School of Dental Sciences, Sharda University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India, 201306

ABSTRACT

Objective:: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of Conservative Restorative Techniques (CRT) and Full Coverage Prosthetics (FCP) in restoring severely damaged teeth, focusing on clinical success, survival rates, aesthetic outcomes, patient satisfaction, tooth sensitivity, and functional longevity. Methods:This prospective, randomized controlled trial included 100 patients with severely damaged teeth, randomly assigned to either the CRT group (n=50) or the FCP group (n=50). The treatments included direct composite resin restorations, inlays, and onlays for CRT, and full crowns made of metal, porcelain-fused-to-metal, or all-ceramic materials for FCP. Outcome measures were evaluated at baseline, 6 months, and 24 months. Statistical analysis was performed using Chi-square and t-tests to compare survival rates, clinical success, aesthetic outcomes, patient satisfaction, tooth sensitivity, and functional longevity between the two groups. Results:The results showed that FCP had a higher survival rate (96%) compared to CRT (92%). Clinical success rates were higher for FCP (94%) compared to CRT (89%). Aesthetic outcomes, as measured by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), favored CRT (8.5) over FCP (7.2). Patient satisfaction scores were also higher for FCP (9.1) compared to CRT (8.3). Tooth sensitivity was mild in 12% of CRT cases and 4% of FCP cases. Functional longevity was better in the FCP group (98%) compared to CRT (90%). Statistical analysis revealed significant differences in clinical success, survival rates, and patient satisfaction (p < 0.05). Conclusion:Both CRT and FCP are effective in restoring severely damaged teeth, with FCP demonstrating higher survival rates, clinical success, and functional longevity. However, CRT provided superior aesthetic outcomes and patient satisfaction. The choice of technique should be based on the specific clinical requirements and patient preferences...

Keywords: Aesthetic outcomes, Clinical success, Conservative restorative techniques, Full coverage prosthetics, Patient satisfaction.

How to cite this article: Das M, Bobba CT, Dogra AK, Alshadidi WAF, Alqahtani FMR, Waghmare K, Kashwani R; A Comparative Study on the Efficacy of Conservative Restorative Techniques versus Full Coverage Prosthetics in Restoring Severely Damaged Teeth..Int J Drug Deliv Technol. 2026;16(1s): 561-566; DOI: 10.25258/ijddt.16. 561-566