Abstract:Statement of the problem: Tooth preparation with horizontal finish line requires removal of reasonable amount of tooth structure at the cervical area which affects the remaining tooth structure at this area. Therefore, more conservative preparation design such as biologically oriented preparation technique (BOPT) might be needed to save tooth structure at the cervical area. The Purpose: To Evaluate the effect of Conventional preparation design (horizontal), and Biologically Oriented Preparation Technique (BOPT), on Marginal adaptation, fracture and gingival inflammation score of the translucent zirconia crown in dental esthetic zone. Methodology:, 44 monolithic translucent zirconia single crowns were fabricated inn dental esthetic zone . The patients were separated randomly into two groups. Group1: (horizontal preparation design) Group2: BOPT. After final cementation. The Modified United States Public Health Service (MUSPH) criteria for restoration clinical evaluations were used to assess marginal adaption. Gingival inflammation was assessed using gingival inflammation index. Evaluation of the restoration was at intervals of three, six, nine, and twelve months. Results: Comparison between two groups at different intervals regarding marginal adaptation, fracture and gingival inflammation score revealed statistically insignificant difference. Conclusions: Within limitations of the present one year follow up randomized clinical trial, the following conclusions could be drawn: 1.The conventional and BOPT preparation designs both clinically accepted to provide successful dental restoration The lower gingival inflammation score of the restored teeth with the conventional preparation design compared to that of the BOPT, may not be conclusive as regard the study time frame, indicating that increasing the follow-up period might alter the present finding. Clinical implications: Beyond of all the prosthodontic preparation techniques, knowledge of B.O.P.T. (Biological Oriented Preparation Technique) allows us to achieve predictable and consistent results in terms of periodontal health and gingiva architecture surrounding ceramic restoration. Nevertheless, long term studies are necessary to ensure the benefits of this techniques.

Two-year clinical performance of indirect resin composite restorations in endodontically treated teeth with different cavity preparation designs: a randomized clinical trial

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

Clinical performance of polyethylenefiber reinforced resin composite restorations in endodontically treated teeth: (a randomized controlled clinical trial)

Clinical performance and wear resistance of milled resin composite material versus direct nanohybrid bulk-fill resin composite in the restoration of endodontically treated posterior teeth over 1 year: Randomized clinical trial

A randomized clinical study evaluating the 30-month clinical performance of class II indirect restorations in endodontically treated teeth using ceramic, hybrid, and composite computer-aided design/computer-aided production blocks

Clinical evaluation of direct resin composite restorations of endodontically treated molars using dual cured self-adhesive system with bulk fill composite versus incremental packing technique

Outcome of Teeth Restored with CAD/CAM Zirconium Dioxide Post-Cores: a Retrospective Study with a Follow-Up Period of 3–6 Years

Clinical performance of different bulk‐fill composite resin systems in class II cavities: A 2‐year randomized clinical trial

Clinical performance of two ion‐releasing bulk‐fill composites in class I and class II restorations: A two‐year evaluation

Clinical performance of an alkasite-based bioactive restorative in class II cavities: a randomized clinical trial

TWO YEARS CLINICAL EVALUATION OF A BULK FILL COMPOSITE RESIN COMPARED WITH A NANOHYBRIDE INCREMENTAL FILL COMPOSITE RESIN IN CLASS ΙΙ CAVITIES

Clinical, radiographic and biochemical assessment of proximal cavities restored with composite resin using incremental vs. bulk packing techniques: One-year randomized clinical trial

Evaluating the Proximal Contact Tightness in Direct or In-direct Restoration of Endodontically Treated Teeth: Randomized Clinical Trial

Clinical effectiveness of direct resin composite restorations bonded using one-step or two-step self-etch adhesive systems: A three-year multicenter study

Randomized Clinical Trial on Direct Composite and Indirect Ceramic Laminate Veneers in Multiple Diastema Closure Cases: Two-Year Follow-Up

3-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the performance of posterior composite restorations lined with ion-releasing materials

Clinical Performance and Wear Resistance of Highly Translucent Nano Zirconia Reinforced Glass Ionomer Filling Versus Conventional Resin Composite Restorations in Patients with Proximal Carious Teeth: Randomized Clinical Trial

Clinical performance of resin-matrix ceramic partial coverage restorations: a systematic review

Clinical assessment of thermo-viscous versus conventional bulk-fill resin composites in proximal compound posterior restorations

One Year Clinical Evaluation Of Translucent Zirconia Crowns In Dental Esthetic Zone With Biologically Oriented Preparation Technique Versus Conventional Preparation (RCT)

A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial of one nano-hybrid and one high-viscosity bulk-fill composite restorative systems in class II cavities: 12 months results