Two‑year clinical performance of indirect restorations fabricated from CAD/CAM nano hybrid composite versus lithium disilicate in mutilated vital teeth. A randomized controlled trial

Table 4 Frequencies and percentages of restoration fracture scores in both groups

Follow-up	Restoration fracture		Nano composite	Emax	p-value
Baseline	Alpha	n	25	25	1ns
	Alpha	%	100.0%	100.0%
	Bravo	n	0	0
	Bravo	%	0.0%	0.0%
	Charlie	n	0	0
	Charlie	%	0.0%	0.0%
	Delta	n	0	0
	Delta	%	0.0%	0.0%
	Dropout	n	0	0
	Dropout	%	0.0%	0.0%
6 months	Alpha	n	25	25	1ns
	Alpha	%	100.0%	100.0%
	Bravo	n	0	0
	Bravo	%	0.0%	0.0%
	Charlie	n	0	0
	Charlie	%	0.0%	0.0%
	Delta	n	0	0
	Delta	%	0.0%	0.0%
	Dropout	n	0	0
	Dropout	%	0.0%	0.0%
1 year	Alpha	n	23	20	0.152ns
	Alpha	%	92.0%	80.0%
	Bravo	n	0	0
	Bravo	%	0.0%	0.0%
	Charlie	n	0	2
	Charlie	%	0.0%	8.0%
	Delta	n	0	0
	Delta	%	0.0%	0.0%
	Dropout	n	2	3
	Dropout	%	8.0%	12.0%
2 years	Alpha	n	22	20	0.512ns
	Alpha	%	88.0%	80.0%
	Bravo	n	1	0
	Bravo	%	4.0%	0.0%
	Charlie	n	0	0
	Charlie	%	0.0%	0.0%
	Delta	n	0	2
	Delta	%	0.0%	8.0%
	Dropout	n	2	3
	Dropout	%	8.0%	12.0%
p-value			1ns	1ns

Values with different superscript letters within the same vertical column are significantly different *; significant (p ≤ 0.05) ns; non-significant (p > 0.05)

ISSN: 1472-6831