-
Journal of Conservative Dentistry : JCD 2022Advances in adhesive technologies and escalation in esthetic demands have increased indications for tooth-colored, partial coverage restorations. Recently, material... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Advances in adhesive technologies and escalation in esthetic demands have increased indications for tooth-colored, partial coverage restorations. Recently, material knowledge has evolved, new materials have been developed, and no systematic review has answered the question posed by practitioners: Is the clinical efficacy of resin or ceramic better, for inlay, onlay, and overlay in the long run?
AIM
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical performance of ceramic and resin inlays, onlays, and overlays and to identify the complication types associated with the main clinical outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two reviewers (VN and AJ) searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central registry of controlled trials for published articles between 1983 and 2020 conforming to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines for systematic reviews. Only clinical studies which met the following criteria were included (1) studies regarding ceramic and resin inlays, onlays, and overlays were included; (2) randomized controlled trials, retrospective or prospective studies conducted in humans; (3) studies with a dropout rate <50% 4) studies with a follow-up higher than 5 years.
RESULTS
Of 1718 articles, 21 articles were selected. At 5 years, the estimated survival rates for resin ( = 129) was 86%, feldspathic porcelain ( = 1048) was 90%, and glass ceramic ( = 2218) was 92%; at 10 years, the survival of resin was 75% ( = 115), feldspathic porcelain was 91% ( = 1829), and glass ceramic was 89% ( = 1075).
CONCLUSION
The meta-regression indicated that ceramic partial coverage restorations (feldspathic porcelain and glass-ceramic) outperformed resin partial coverage restorations both at 5-year and 10-year follow-up. When compared between ceramic types, glass ceramics outperformed feldspathic porcelain at 5 years' follow-up and feldspathic porcelain outperformed glass ceramics at 10 years' follow-up. The failures were mostly due to fractures (6.2%), endodontic problems (3%), secondary caries (1.7%), and debonding which was 0.9%.
PubMed: 36187858
DOI: 10.4103/jcd.jcd_184_22 -
Journal of Clinical and Experimental... Nov 2021Proper cement selection in fixed prosthesis plays a determinative role in providing long-term serviceability, retention, caries prevention, and patient satisfaction.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Proper cement selection in fixed prosthesis plays a determinative role in providing long-term serviceability, retention, caries prevention, and patient satisfaction. This study, reviews different luting agent characteristics and their application based on different clinical situations and different types of full coverage restorations.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic search was conducted through PubMed, Medline, and Google scholar using following keywords or combinations: restoration, full coverage, PFM, porcelain fused to metal, all ceramic, zirconia, ceramic, casting, fixed partial denture, cement*, dental cement, cement selection, and retention. The most related articles were selected for review.
RESULTS
Choosing a proper luting agent is highly dependent on scientific knowledge regarding the characteristics of restorative materials and luting agents. Conventional cements could be indicated in various situations; however, some restorative materials or clinical situations call for resin-cements to provide predictable retention, support, and durability.
CONCLUSIONS
Conscious selection of retentive cement for each type of restoration/material is necessary to provide predictable successful treatment and reduce the potential complications. Adhesive cement, dental bridgework, dental cements, dental crowns, dental porcelain, prostheses and implants.
PubMed: 34824703
DOI: 10.4317/jced.58671 -
BMC Oral Health Jul 2019The introduction of the new generation of particle-filled and high strength ceramics, hybrid composites and technopolymers in the last decade has offered an extensive... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The introduction of the new generation of particle-filled and high strength ceramics, hybrid composites and technopolymers in the last decade has offered an extensive palette of dental materials broadening the clinical indications in fixed prosthodontics, in the light of minimally invasive dentistry dictates. Moreover, last years have seen a dramatic increase in the patients' demand for non-metallic materials, sometimes induced by metal-phobia or alleged allergies. Therefore, the attention of scientific research has been progressively focusing on such materials, particularly on lithium disilicate and zirconia, in order to shed light on properties, indications and limitations of the new protagonists of the prosthetic scene.
METHODS
This article is aimed at providing a narrative review regarding the state-of-the-art in the field of these popular ceramic materials, as to their physical-chemical, mechanical and optical properties, as well as to the proper dental applications, by means of scientific literature analysis and with reference to the authors' clinical experience.
RESULTS
A huge amount of data, sometimes conflicting, is available today. Both in vitro and in vivo studies pointed out the outstanding peculiarities of lithium disilicate and zirconia: unparalleled optical and esthetic properties, together with high biocompatibility, high mechanical resistance, reduced thickness and favorable wear behavior have been increasingly orientating the clinicians' choice toward such ceramics.
CONCLUSIONS
The noticeable properties and versatility make lithium disilicate and zirconia materials of choice for modern prosthetic dentistry, requiring high esthetic and mechanical performances combined with a minimal invasive approach, so that the utilization of such metal-free ceramics has become more and more widespread over time.
Topics: Ceramics; Dental Porcelain; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Materials Testing; Surface Properties; Zirconium
PubMed: 31272441
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-019-0838-x -
Journal of Dentistry Jul 2019In this randomized split-mouth clinical trial the survival rate and quality of survival of indirect resin composite and ceramic laminate veneers were evaluated. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVES
In this randomized split-mouth clinical trial the survival rate and quality of survival of indirect resin composite and ceramic laminate veneers were evaluated.
METHODS
A total of 48 indirect resin composite (Estenia; n = 24) and ceramic laminate veneers (IPS Empress Esthetic; n = 24) were placed on maxillary anterior teeth. Veneer preparations with incisal overlap were performed using a mock up technique. Survival of the restoration was considered the primary outcome measure and reported using Kaplan-Meier statistics and survival curves compared by means of Log Rank (Mantel-Cox) test. After luting, restorations were evaluated by calibrated operators at baseline and every year thereafter, using modified USPHS criteria and compared by means of Mann-Whitney U test.
RESULTS
In total, 6 failures were observed, consisting of debonding (n = 3) and fracture (n = 3), all in the group of the indirect resin composite laminate veneers. Cumulative chance on survival after 10 years of the indirect resin composite and ceramic veneers was 75% (se 3,8%) and 100% respectively (p = 0.013). Of the surviving 42 laminate veneers, the variables 'color match' (p = 0.002), 'surface roughness' (p = 0.000), 'fracture of the restoration' (p = 0.028), and 'wear of the restoration' (p = 0.014), were significantly less favourable among the composite laminate veneers as well.
CONCLUSIONS
The ceramic veneers on maxillary anterior teeth in this study performed significantly better compared to the composite indirect laminate veneers after a decade, both in terms of survival rate and in terms of quality of the surviving restorations.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
When indicated, anterior ceramic laminate veneers may be preferred over indirect composite laminate veneers.
Topics: Ceramics; Color; Composite Resins; Dental Porcelain; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Veneers; Resin Cements
PubMed: 31181242
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2019.06.001 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Jan 2022To analyze the clinical outcomes of all-ceramic single crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) supported by ceramic implants. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To analyze the clinical outcomes of all-ceramic single crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) supported by ceramic implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Based on a focused question and customized PICO framework, electronic (Medline/EMBASE/Cochrane) and manual searches for studies reporting the clinical outcomes of all-ceramic SCs and FDPs supported by ceramic implants ≥12 months were performed. The primary outcomes were reconstruction survival and the chipping proportion. The secondary outcomes were implant survival, technical complications, and patient-related outcome measurements. Meta-analyses were performed after 1, 2, and 5 years using random-effect meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Eight of the 1,403 initially screened titles and 55 full texts were included. Five reported on monolithic lithium disilicate (LS2) SCs, one on veneered zirconia SCs, and two on veneered zirconia SCs and FDPs, which reported all on cement-retained reconstructions (mean observation: 12.0-61.0 months). Meta-analyses estimated a 5-year survival rate of 94% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 82%-100%) for overall implant survival. Reconstruction survival proportions after 5 years were: monolithic LS2, 100% (95%CI: 95%-100%); veneered zirconia SCs, 89% (95%CI: 62%-100%); and veneered zirconia FDPs 94% (95%CI: 81%-100%). The chipping proportion after 5 years was: monolithic LS2, 2% (95%CI: 0%-11%); veneered zirconia SCs, 38% (95%CI: 24%-54%); and veneered zirconia FDPs, 57% (95%CI: 38%-76%). Further outcomes were summarized descriptively.
CONCLUSIONS
Due to the limited data available, only tendencies could be identified. All-ceramic reconstructions supported by ceramic implants demonstrated promising survival rates after mid-term observation. However, high chipping proportions of veneered zirconia SCs and, particularly, FDPs diminished the overall outcome. Monolithic LS2 demonstrated fewer clinical complications. Monolithic reconstructions could be a valid treatment option for ceramic implants.
Topics: Ceramics; Crowns; Dental Implants; Dental Porcelain; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Metal Ceramic Alloys; Zirconium
PubMed: 34665900
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13871 -
Clinical and Experimental Dental... Dec 2022This systematic review aims to investigate the effect of different preparation designs on the marginal fit and fracture strength of ceramic occlusal veneers. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review aims to investigate the effect of different preparation designs on the marginal fit and fracture strength of ceramic occlusal veneers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Based on the PICO question and the search terms, an electronic search was performed in Google Scholar, PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Science Direct, Wiley, Ovid, and SAGE for articles published up to July 2022. After including English in vitro studies that evaluated posterior ceramic occlusal overlays at the posterior with ceramic restorations by following the PRISMA statement, the extracted data was tabulated. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated. Risk of bias assessment was done independently by two authors using the modified MINORS scale.
RESULTS
About 3138 search results were screened, of which 22 were selected due to their titles. Twenty-one full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Seventeen in-vitro studies were finalized for the extraction of quantitative data. All 17 articles had a low risk of bias and were retained. The influencing items for evaluating the research were different in most studies; therefore, qualitative synthesis of the results was feasible. They generally included preparation design, material thickness, depth of preparation in the tooth, internal divergence angle, and finish line. Meta-analysis was not done due to heterogeneity of preparation types and evaluation methods. Results revealed that fracture resistance of occlusal veneers is higher than normal mastication force, and it is sufficient to prepare the occlusal surface, use a self-etching primer for bonding, and an acceptable minimum ceramic thickness. The marginal discrepancy of occlusal veneers is clinically acceptable. However, this systematic review faces some limitations due to the lack of in vivo studies, different preparation designs in included studies, different follow-ups, and lack of comprehensive explanations in articles.
CONCLUSIONS
The preparation design of occlusal veneers influences both marginal adaptation and fracture resistance. Various preparation designs are proven to have clinically acceptable fracture strength and marginal adaptation.
Topics: Dental Porcelain; Dental Veneers; Flexural Strength; Dental Stress Analysis; Materials Testing; Ceramics
PubMed: 36062841
DOI: 10.1002/cre2.653 -
Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of... Feb 2021The objectives of this study were to test the fracture strength in vitro of laminate veneers, partial laminate veneers and composite restorations after aging and analyze...
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this study were to test the fracture strength in vitro of laminate veneers, partial laminate veneers and composite restorations after aging and analyze the failure mode.
METHODS
Forty extracted, sound human teeth were selected and divided into four groups: 1) Control group (CG); 2) Conventional Laminate Veneer (CLV); 3) Partial Laminate Veneer (PLV); 4) Direct Composite Resin (DCR). Laminate veneer preparations with incisal overlap were made in group CLV whereas only incisal preparations were made with a 1 mm bevel in group PLV and DCR. The indirect restorations were luted with a resin composite and the DCR group was restored with a direct resin composite restoration. The restored teeth were subsequently aged by thermocycling (20.000 cycles, 5-55 degrees C). Subsequently, the fracture strength was tested by a load to failure test at 135° on the incisal edge. A failure analysis was performed using light microscopy. The results were analyzed using Shapiro-Wilk and Kruska-Wallis test.
RESULTS
After thermocycling, one sample from group CLV presented a premature adhesive failure and was excluded. Three restorations from groups PLV and DCR presented small cracks but were taken to the fracture test. After aging mean fracture load + SD (N) were: Group DCR (n = 10): 385 ± 225; Group CG (n = 10): 271 ± 100; Group PLV (n = 10): 266 ± 69; Group CLV (n = 9): 264 ± 66. Fracture strength means from groups CLV and PLV did not differ statistically from each other nor from control (p = 0.05). In the group CLV the root fracture was the most occurring fracture. In groups PLV and DCR, material cohesive failures and a mix (adhesive, tooth and material cohesive) failures were most observed.
SIGNIFICANCE
This in vitro study showed for the first time that partial laminate veneers can exhibit fracture strength values similar to direct composite restorations or conventional ceramic laminate veneers. All three restorative procedures presented clinically acceptable values of fracture strength. Even though three samples from groups PLV and three from DCR presented small cracks after thermocycling, these cracks do not appear to have a negative effect on the fracture strength.
Topics: Aged; Ceramics; Composite Resins; Dental Porcelain; Dental Stress Analysis; Dental Veneers; Flexural Strength; Humans; Materials Testing; Resin Cements
PubMed: 33172798
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.104172 -
BMC Oral Health Dec 2021How long do lithium disilicate restorations last before they fail? The aim of this study was to assess the success rate of four different types of restorations made from...
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE
How long do lithium disilicate restorations last before they fail? The aim of this study was to assess the success rate of four different types of restorations made from lithium disilicate.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A total of 87,203 ceramic restorations, classified into four different types (inlay or onlay, veneers (Vs), single crowns (SCs), and fixed partial dentures (FPDs)), were used. All were made of lithium disilicate (IPS e.Max CAD) with Cerec Inlab CAD/CAM system (Sirona Dental Systems, Bensheim, Germany). They were reported by dentists and entered in the database of the private B&R Dental Center between March 2015 and June 2020 and assessed retrospectively up to a period of 5 years based on the following parameters: failure rate and cause of failures (ceramic fracture, debonding, marginal adaptation, color match, endodontic intervention, periodontal disease, and secondary caries). Failure distribution according to gender, arch, and teeth type was also evaluated. The time-dependent time-to-failure/complication and their differences were calculated in months according to the Kaplan Meier and log-rank tests. The Chi-squared test (p 0.05) was used to assess the variations in causes of failure rates between different restorations.
RESULTS
Kaplan Meier test showed overall cumulative survival probability of lithium disilicate restorations for up to years was 85.08%. Inlay/onlay and Vs ceramic restorations showed highest cumulative survival probability (99.4%, 98.6, respectively). FPDs had the least cumulative survival probability (52.9%) which was significantly (P < 0.00001) higher than for other ceramic restorations using the log-rank test. Moreover, overall time-dependent time-to-failure/complication occurred after 52.373 months according to Kaplan-Meier (CI: lower bound: 51.875 months; upper bound: 52.871 months). Ceramic fracture in both FPDs and SCs (27.6% and 26.6%, respectively) and debonding in Vs (12.7%) were significant as the main reasons for failure (P = 0.000). The failure rate was significantly higher for the maxillary arch than the mandibular arch (P = 0.021). Fracture and marginal discrepancy were more frequent in the molar region (77.5% and 14.75%, respectively) and significantly higher here than in the anterior and premolar regions (P = 0.000).
CONCLUSION
The medium-term performance of lithium disilicate is ideal. Ceramic fracture was the most common cause of failure in SCs and FPDs. FPDs presented with the highest failure rate based on evaluation for up to 5 years.
Topics: Ceramics; Computer-Aided Design; Crowns; Dental Porcelain; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34876103
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01987-1 -
BMC Oral Health Jun 2019The paradigm shift obtained with new dental materials permits minimally invasive dentistry, by following a biomimetic approach. Erosion increasingly affects the adult...
BACKGROUND
The paradigm shift obtained with new dental materials permits minimally invasive dentistry, by following a biomimetic approach. Erosion increasingly affects the adult population through dental substance loss by acid attack. Oral rehabilitation is often extensive and requires careful mouth examination and treatments codified in the literature.
CASE PRESENTATION
This clinical report proposes a reasoned approach to erosion treatment for a 39-year-old male patient presenting several old fixed prostheses. These old restorations are all of correct quality and are retained. The temporomandibular joint was free from disorder. Only defective reconstructions are remade together with eroded teeth, according to a three-step technical protocol. In the first step, mock-up manufacturing is performed which occlusal vertical dimension increased to 1 mm provoking passive dental overeruption to the second and third molars. In all, one ceramic crown was remade, and two ceramic onlays and a resin composite were integrated on the posterior teeth. The last step consisted of palatal veneers on the maxillary incisor and canine, and an aesthetic resin composite on the incisor edge. After these treatments, regular assessments were carried out at 4 months then at 6 months with visual, photographic and radiographic examinations.
CONCLUSION
The present dental care philosophy is to preserve dental tissue as much as possible, even in large erosion cases, and to respond to the aesthetic and functional expectations of the patient. This methodology requires a thorough evaluation phase, compliance with the protocol and regular patient follow-up.
Topics: Adult; Composite Resins; Dental Materials; Dental Porcelain; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Dental Veneers; Dentition; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Male; Patient Care Planning; Tooth Erosion; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31226976
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-019-0807-4 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research May 2022To compare screw-retained and cemented all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns regarding biological and technical outcomes over a 5-year observation period. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVES
To compare screw-retained and cemented all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns regarding biological and technical outcomes over a 5-year observation period.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In 44 patients, 44 two-piece dental implants were placed in single-tooth gaps in the esthetic zone. Patients randomly received a screw-retained (SR) or cemented (CR) all-ceramic single crown and were then re-examined annually up to 5 years. Outcome measures included: clinical, biological, technical, and radiographic parameters. Data were statistically analyzed with Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon, and Fisher's exact tests.
RESULTS
During the observation period, three patients (6.8%) were loss to follow-up. Eight restorations (18.2%, CI (8.2%, 32.7%)) were lost due to technical (6 patients, 13.6% (CI (5.2%, 27.4%)), 2 CR and 4 SR group, intergroup p = .673; implants still present) or biological complications (2 patients, 4.5% (CI (0.6%, 16.5%)), only CR group, intergroup p = .201, both implants lost). This resulted in a survival rate of 81.2% (CI (65.9%, 90.1%)) on the restorative level (18 SR; 15 CR, 3 lost to follow-up). At the 5-year follow-up, the median marginal bone levels were located slightly apical relative to the implant shoulder with 0.4 mm (0.5; 0.3) (SR) and 0.4 mm (0.8; 0.3) (CR) (intergroup p = .582). Cemented restorations demonstrated a significantly higher biological complication rate (36.8%, SR: 0.0%; intergroup p = .0022), as well as a significantly higher overall complication rate (68.4%, SR: 22.7%, intergroup p = .0049). All other outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups (p > .05).
CONCLUSIONS
All-ceramic single-tooth restorations on two-piece dental implants resulted in a relatively low survival rate. Cemented restorations were associated with a higher biological and overall complication rate than screw-retained restorations.
Topics: Bone Screws; Crowns; Dental Abutments; Dental Implants; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Dental Porcelain; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Zirconium
PubMed: 35224774
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13913