The Clinical Success Of All-Ceramic Restorations (original) (raw)
Related papers
European journal of oral implantology, 2011
To compare the biological, technical and aesthetic outcomes of single implant-supported all-ceramic versus metal-ceramic crowns. Thirty-six patients with premolar agenesis were randomly treated with 38 all-ceramic (AC) and 37 metal-ceramic (MC) implant-supported single-tooth restorations. A quasi-randomisation of consecutively included restorations in patients with one or more implants was used, i.e. a combination of parallel group (for 13 patients with one restoration) and split-mouth (for 23 patients with ≥2 restorations). All patients were recalled for baseline and 1-year followup examinations. Biological and technical outcomes, including complications, were clinically and radiographically registered. The Copenhagen Index Score and visual analogue scale (VAS) score were used to assess professional and patient-reported aesthetic outcomes, respectively, by blinded assessors. One-year after loading, no patient dropped out and no implant failed, though one MC restoration had to be re...
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2021
Statement of problem. Long-term clinical data are lacking on the comparison of the survival of adhesively luted pressed e.max lithium disilicate glass ceramic complete and partial coverage restorations in posterior dentitions and the effect that different technical and clinical variables have on their survival. Purpose. The purpose of this clinical study was to examine and compare the 16.9-year survival of posterior pressed e.max lithium disilicate glass ceramic complete and partial coverage restorations and associated clinical parameters on the outcome. Material and methods. Patients requiring either single-unit posterior defect-specific partial coverage or complete coverage restorations were recruited in a clinical private practice. The participants were offered the options of direct restorations, partial coverage cast gold, or glass ceramic (lithium disilicate) restorations. Those requiring complete coverage restorations were given the options of complete cast gold, metal-ceramic, or glass ceramic restorations. Only participants who chose glass ceramic partial and complete coverage restorations were included in the study. The overall survival of the glass ceramic restorations was assessed by the clinical factors determined at recall. The effect of various clinical parameters (type of restoration, dental arch, tooth position in the dental arch, age and sex of participant, and ceramic thickness) was evaluated by using Kaplan-Meier survival curves to account for attrition bias and other reasons for failure. The statistical significance of differences between parameters was determined using the log rank test (a=.05). Results. A total of 738 participants requiring 2392 lithium disilicate restorations in posterior teeth were evaluated. The mean age of the participants at the time of restoration placement was 62 (range: 20-99 years, 302 men and 436 women). Of 2392 units, 1782 were complete and 610 were partial coverage restorations. A total of 22 failures (bulk fracture or large chip) requiring replacement were recorded with the average time to failure 3.5 (0.02-7.9) years. The total time at risk computed for these units was 13227.9 years, providing an estimated failure risk of 0.17% per year. The 16.9-year estimated cumulative survival was 96.49%. The estimated cumulative survival of posterior complete (n=1782) and posterior partial coverage restorations (n=610) was 96.75% at 10.5 years and 95.27% at 16.9 years (P<.05). Of the 22, 16 failures were recorded for the complete coverage restorations. The total time at risk for these restorations was 10144.5 years, providing an estimated risk of 0.16 per year. The other 6 failures recorded occurred for the partial coverage restorations. The total time at risk for these restorations was 3083.5 years, providing an estimated risk of 0.19% per year. No statistically significant difference was found in the survival of posterior complete and partial coverage restorations among men and women, different age groups, or posterior tooth position in the dental arch (P>.05). The thickness of the restoration also had no influence on the survival of glass ceramic posterior restorations (P>.05). Conclusions. Pressed e.max lithium disilicate complete and partial coverage restorations showed high survival rates in posterior teeth over a 16.9-year period, with an overall failure rate of 0.17% per year. Risk of failure at any age was low for both men and women. No statistically significant difference was found in the survival of complete and partial coverage restorations, and none of the confounding variables, including the thickness of the restoration, appeared to have a significant effect on survival.
Biology
The metal-ceramic fixed partial prosthesis is the golden standard for posterior tooth restorations. Following the demands of patients and clinicians for metal-free restorations, all-ceramic materials were developed as they offer an adequate alternative with better optical qualities and good mechanical properties. This study aims to carry out a bibliographic review to assess the survival rate and the biological and technical complications of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic fixed partial dentures. An electronic search for articles in the English language literature was performed using PubMed (MEDLINE). This literature review focused on research studies between 2010 and 2020 that performed clinical studies on tooth-supported fixed partial dentures with a mean follow-up of at least 3 years. All the studies, which analyzed the survival and complications of tooth-supported fixed partial dentures, were included. Thus, 14 studies reporting on 756 all-ceramic and 160 metal-ceramic fixed partia...
World Journal of Dentistry, 2017
Porcelain fused to metal (PFM) restorations has shown promising results in terms of longevity over decades. However, due to the paradigm shift with the preferences of both the patients and clinicians toward all ceramic restorations, these prostheses are being increasingly used in posterior region. Zirconia is one of the popular materials in dentistry today; it has good mechanical strength and has shown remarkable results in shortterm studies from 3 to 5 years. However, zirconia aging and chipping are most common causes of zirconia failure, besides loss of retention has also been reported in some studies. Nonetheless, there are no substantial studies that decipher the longevity of these restorations over a longer period of time. Moreover, it has been reported that zirconia cannot be used in areas of higher stresses. This review article compares the promising ceramic material zirconia and PFM restorations in terms of longevity and esthetics based on the present studies. An electronic ...
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2019
Ceramic materials, especially lithium disilicate and zirconia, are being used extensively for the fabrication of crowns and fixed partial dentures (FPDs). In the past, the performance of ceramic crowns and FPDs was limited by premature fracture failure. 1,2 In 1991, Scharer 3 proposed that clinicians should demand 3-to 5-year data from independent clinical trials, indicating a survival rate of 95%, before adopting a new ceramic material. While these criteria are arbitrary, they seem to provide appropriate protection. However, properly conducted clinical trials are both expensive and timeconsuming, and it takes approximately 10 years after
Recent Advances in Materials for All-Ceramic Restorations
Dental Clinics of North America, 2007
The past three years of research on materials for all-ceramic veneers, inlays, onlays, single-unit crowns, and multi-unit restorations are reviewed. The primary changes in the field were the proliferation of zirconia-based frameworks and computer-aided fabrication of prostheses, as well as, a trend toward more clinically relevant in vitro test methods. This report includes an overview of ceramic fabrication methods, suggestions for critical assessment of material property data, and a summary of clinical longevity for prostheses constructed of various materials. BACKGROUND Ceramic materials are best able to mimic the appearance of natural teeth. However, two obstacles have limited the use of ceramics in the fabrication of dental prostheses: 1) brittleness leading to a lack of mechanical reliability and 2) greater effort and time required for processing in comparison to metal alloys and dental composites. Recent advances in ceramic processing methods have simplified the work of the dental technician and have allowed greater quality control for ceramic materials, which has increased their mechanical reliability. As a result, the proportion of restorative treatments using all-ceramic prostheses is rapidly growing. Several authors previously reviewed progress in the field of dental ceramics [1-12]. This article reviews the research literature and commercial changes over the past three years since the last review in this field. The recent developments in dental ceramic technology can be categorized into three primary trends: 1. There has been a rapid diversification of equipment and materials available for computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) of ceramic prostheses. 2. The availability of CAD-CAM processing permitted the use of polycrystalline zirconia coping and framework materials. The relatively high stiffness and good mechanical reliability of partially stabilized zirconia allows thinner core layers, longer bridge spans, and the use of all-ceramic fixed partial dentures (FPDs) in posterior locations. 3. Basic science researchers are increasingly using clinically relevant specimen geometry, surface finish, and mechanical loading in their in vitro studies. This implies that in vitro results will more accurately predict clinical performance of ceramic prostheses, but clinicians still need to be cautious in extrapolating from the laboratory to the clinical case.
2019
Case Report Over the last two decades, a shift towards the indication of all-ceramic restorations has been sought the dentistry to meet higher esthetic demands. Having an ideal material that combines the indications of the others materials and limits their disadvantages, is the goal of the researchers who try to satisfy our needs. Recently, zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate glass ceramic was introduced in the market. Indeed, thanks to its interesting mechanical and optical properties, its fine and homogeneous microstructure, and its minimal wear of the opposing teeth after optimal polishing, this ceramic milled in monolithic restoration seems to outperform lithium disilicate and conventional zirconia crowns.
Partial Ceramic Crowns. Esthetic and Tissue Conservative Restorations – Part I: Posterior Teeth
Stomatology Edu Journal
Background: Partial ceramic crowns (PCCs) are more tooth conservative and potentially less stressful for the periodontium than full coverage crowns and meet the esthetic demands of patients. Objective: evidence shall be provided, if PCCs are a reliable treatment option, and under which conditions. Data sources: this review is based on own published data and experiences and on a review of the literature. Results: Longevity of PCCs is in the range of partial crowns from gold alloys. Failures due to chip fractures, bulk fractures, or debonding can be avoided/reduced by proper technique. Most clinical experience exists with leucite reinforced silicate or lithium disilicate ceramics, either pressed or CAD/CAM processed. Tooth preparation must respect the need for sufficient ceramic thickness of at least 1.5 mm. Residual buccal or oral cusps of less than 2 mm thickness should be included in the preparation. Cavity preparation should be defect oriented with few parallel walls as guidance for placement. Dual curing luting composites together with etch and rinse (E&R) adhesives are standard. Self-adhesive materials can be used but are sensitive to tooth desiccation before luting. Clinical experience with new universal adhesives is limited, but available results are promising. Light curing should be performed by applying 32 J/cm 2 from oral, buccal and occlusal aspects (silicate based ceramics). Conclusions: PCCs are a reliable treatment option for extended defects in posterior teeth. Special guidelines must be followed including sufficient ceramic thickness and proper adhesive technique to avoid failures.
All-Ceramic Systems: Laboratory and Clinical Performance
Over the last 3 decades, a trend to shift toward metal-free restorations has been observed in the dental field. To meet these increased demands of patients and dentists for highly aesthetic, biocompatible, and long-lasting restorations, several types of all-ceramic systems have been developed. 1 Silicate and glass ceramics are used as a veneer for metal or all-ceramic cores to optimize form and aesthetics. In a monolithic application, small-sized restorations such as inlays, onlays, laminate veneers, and crowns can also be fabricated. High-strength ceramics such as aluminum and zirconium oxide ceramics were developed as a core material for crowns and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) to extend the indication ranges to the high-load bearing areas. 2 Most recently, monolithic zirconia restorations are increasingly promoted for single-crown and full-mouth rehabilitation, in particular for patients with parafunctional habits.