The 3-year cumulative survival rates of posterior monolithic zirconia crowns and their antagonist teeth, and their influencing factors

Comparison of clinical outcomes between single metal-ceramic and zirconia crowns

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Evidence comparing the survival of zirconia crowns with metal-ceramic crowns is sparse. Knowledge of their survival and a comparison of their clinical outcomes would improve clinical decision making.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this university-based study was to compare the survival, failures, biological and technical complications encountered with zirconia and metal-ceramic crowns restored and followed up over a similar period.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This retrospective chart review consisted of 403 patients treated at the University of Toronto, Faculty of Dentistry, predoctoral dental clinic in whom zirconia (n=209) and metal-ceramic (n=306) crowns were inserted between September 2015 and July 2016 and followed for up to 7 years. Outcome measures included failure, causes for failure, and complications associated with survival. Inferential statistical analysis included the chi-squared test, t test, Mann-Whitney test, Bonferroni-adjusted z-test, Kaplan-Meier survival test, and logistic regression to examine differences between crown types and explore crown failures (α=.05).

RESULTS

The mean follow-up period was 3.00 years (median 2.58 years). Forty-one (8.0%) crowns had no follow-up, with no difference in follow-up between crown type: metal-ceramic n=23(7.5%), zirconia n=18(8.6%), χ²(1)=0.20, P=.652). Excluding those with no follow-up, the follow-up time between metal-ceramic (mean=3.07, median=2.58) and zirconia (mean=3.54, median=3.32) crowns was statistically similar (P=.052). There were 62 anterior crowns (12.0%) and 453 posterior crowns (88.0%), χ²(1)=22.40, P<.001, with no difference between groups. Overall, 44 crowns (8.5%) failed, 30 (9.8%) metal-ceramic and 14 (6.7%) zirconia, with no statistical difference in proportion of failed crowns between groups (χ²(1)=1.53, P=.216). There were 35 crowns with biological failures (6.8%), 26 (8.5%) in the metal-ceramic and 9 (4.4%) in the zirconia group, with no statistical difference between groups (χ²(1)=3.33, P=.068). Nine crowns had technical failures (1.7%), 4 (1.4%) in the metal-ceramic group and 5 (2.5%) in the zirconia group, with no statistical difference between groups (χ²(1)=0.73, P=.394). Biological (79.5%) rather than technical complications were found to be the most frequent cause of failure, goodness-of-fit χ²(1)=15.36, P<.001. Tooth fracture (50.0%) specifically was found to be the most frequent cause of failure, χ²(3)=21.27, P<.001. The total number of crowns that survived was 471 (91.5%); 276 (90.1%) were metal-ceramic and 195(93.3%) zirconia. The survival time (years) for metal-ceramic was mean=6.26, 95% CI [6.01-6.51] and for zirconia crowns mean=6.54, 95% CI [6.31-6.77]. Of the crowns that survived, 370 (78.6%) had no clinical complications, and 101 (21.4%) crowns demonstrated similar clinical complications, with no statistical differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the study follow-up time, the survival of monolithic zirconia and metal-ceramic crowns was 91.5%, with similar clinical complications between groups. Biological complications, especially tooth fracture, were a significantly more frequent complication with both types of crowns.

Fifteen-year recall period on zirconia-based single crowns and fixed dental prostheses. A prospective observational study

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of zirconia-based prostheses used for tooth-supported or implant-supported single crowns and fixed dental prostheses (FPD).

METHODS

The authors conducted a prospective analysis of 562 zirconia core restorations supported by endodontically treated teeth or titanium implant in 276 patients in a general dental private practice, with a follow-up period of 15 years. The study was stopped after patients achieved 15 yrs of follow-up. The study analyzed the failure and complication rates of single and multiple crowns, based on Kaplan Meier analysis.

RESULTS

During follow-up period, there were 26 complications and 156 failures. The crown level analysis revealed a cumulative failure rate of 28.33% and complication rate of 8.47% for zirconia crowns after 15 years. The complication rate was found to be higher for titanium implant-supported than for natural teeth-supported crowns. The different types of crown-based failure include: veener fracture 5.01% (N = 29), metal zirconia led to 14.85% (N = 86) loss of retention, and 1.73% (N = 10) loss of crown due to extraction.

CONCLUSION

Based on these findings, zirconia core restorations appear to be a reliable long-term solution for crowns and fixed dental prostheses.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The study suggests that zirconia restorations can be successfully used for long-term prostheses on natural teeth or implants supported. The study results provide clinicians valuable information when selecting prosthetic restorations material.

Influences of Different CAD/CAM Ceramic Compositions and Thicknesses on the Mechanical Properties of Ceramic Restorations: An In Vitro Study

The aim of this study was to assess the influences of different CAD/CAM ceramic compositions and thicknesses on the surface roughness and hardness of ceramic restorations. Four different ceramics were used in the current study: lithium disilicate (LD), leucite reinforced (LE), advanced lithium disilicate (ALD), and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS). Each group included 30 specimens subdivided into three different ceramic thicknesses (0.5, 1 and 1.5 mm thicknesses). The microhardness was measured for all the specimens using a microhardness testing machine, while the surface roughness was measured using a non-contact optical profilometer at three intervals (before toothbrushing and after toothbrushing, with and without toothpaste). Three-way and two-way ANOVA were used to determine the factors influencing the surface roughness and microhardness. There was a significant difference in the surface roughness between the studied groups for all the thicknesses. The findings showed that ALD had the lowest surface roughness, while ZLS showed the highest surface roughness. Moreover, ALD, followed by ZLS, had the highest hardness, while LD and LE had the lowest hardness values. Regarding the thicknesses, both the 0.5 and 1 mm ceramic thicknesses showed a significantly lower surface roughness than the 1.5 mm thickness, while the 1.5 mm thickness showed a significantly higher microhardness than the 0.5 mm thickness. The surface roughness and hardness were significantly affected by the ceramic composition and type of filler. It is recommended to use 1.5 mm-thick ceramic materials for the fabrication of definitive full-coverage ceramic restorations, while veneers require 0.5 mm-thick materials. ALD is a promising CAD/CAM material that can be used for the fabrication of restorations with a proper strength in both anterior and posterior regions.