Five-year results of a prospective randomised controlled clinical trial of posterior computer-aided design-computer-aided manufacturing ZrSiO4 -ceramic crowns

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.

Retrospective clinical study of 1472-unit monolithic zirconia restorations with feather-edge margins realized with digital workflow

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical performance of monolithic zirconia restorations with feather-edge margins fabricated by digital impressions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All participants that present monolithic zirconia restorations with feather-edge margins realized with digital workflow were evaluated during scheduled periodontal maintenance between February and September 2022 according to predetermined inclusion criteria. Clinical performance was assessed using the modified USPHS and periodontal parameters. Overall survival was calculated for monolithic zirconia restorations. Technical and biologic complications were reported. Descriptive statistical analysis and life-table analyses were performed for all data.

RESULTS

A total of 1472 monolithic zirconia FDPs (1279 on abutments and 193 on pontics) placed in 1189 patients (982 males and 490 females) from February 2017 to September 2020 were analyzed. The mean follow-up was 44 months (range 36-61 months), and the overall survival rate was 98.5%. There were 931 single crowns, 96 were 3-unit FDPs, 33 were 4-unit FDPs, 11 were 5-unit FDPs, and 6-unit FDPs. Three single crowns had irreparable cracks, and 6 single crowns and one 4-unit FDP were fractured. One 3-unit FDP failed due to tooth fracture and 5 single crowns failed due to endodontic failure. The loss of retention was noted in 25 monolithic zirconia FDPs and hypersensitivity in 44 single crowns. Biologic complications were uncommon.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results and its limitations, the monolithic zirconia FPDs and digital impressions represent a favorable prosthetic treatment similar to that reported with other margin designs CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Monolithic zirconia restorations on vertical-margin abutments fabricated using a digital workflow demonstrate excellent clinical performance. The digital clinical workflow without the use of a cast means a reduction in costs, steps, and operating time.

Clinical Outcomes of CAD/CAM (Lithium disilicate and Zirconia) Based and Conventional Full Crowns and Fixed Partial Dentures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Although CAD/CAM (computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing) restorations act as a favorable alternative to conventional metal-ceramic restorations for fixed dental prostheses, little is known about their intermediate and persistent clinical performance. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the clinical performance in terms of biological, technical, and esthetic aspects and the survival and success ratios for single full crowns (SFCs) and fixed partial dentures (FPDs) fabricated by CAD/CAM and conventional techniques and according to the materials used (zirconia {ZC} and lithium disilicate {LD}). The population, intervention, control, outcome, and study design (PICOS) strategy was used to electronically search key terms in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Wiley Online databases for randomized control trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. The bias risks for RCTs and cohort studies were assessed using the Cochrane collaboration tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Meta-analysis was performed using Rev5 from Cochrane. A total of 13 studies reporting on 1598 restorations in 1161 patients with a mean observation period of 3.6 years (minimum-maximum: 1-9.3 years) met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of the included studies indicated that CAD/CAM manufacturing resulted in 1.17, 1.14, and 16.88 (95% CI: 0.64-2.17, 0.86-1.52, 7.59-37.56) higher biological, technical, and esthetic complications than conventional manufacturing of restorations. However, the difference was significant for esthetic complications only (p<0.00001). A significant difference was observed for all biological, technical, and aesthetic aspects between SFCs and FPDs (odds ratio {OR} = 2.61 vs. 1.78, 95% CI: 1.92-3.56 vs. 1.33-2.38; p<0.00001). The survival ratio of SFCs was 2.69 (95% CI: 1.98-3.65), significantly higher compared to the 1.76 (95% CI: 1.31-2.36) of FPDs (p<0.00001). The success ratio of FPDs at 1.18 (95% CI: 0.83-1.69) was significantly lower compared to SFCs at 2.36 (95% CI: 1.68-3.33). The clinical performance of LD with 2.42 (CI: 1.16-5.03) was significantly higher compared to ZC with 2.22 (CI: 1.78-2.77) (p<0.00001). The biological, technical, and aesthetic behaviors showed similar clinical outcomes between the CAD/CAM and conventional groups. LD could be a good alternative to zirconia, but its intermediate or persistent clinical performance needs to be evaluated. Overall, zirconia and CAD/CAM techniques must evolve further to outclass the conventional techniques used in the fabrication of SFCs and FPDs.

Posterior ceramic versus metal restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this systemic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the longevity of indirect adhesively-luted ceramic compared to conventionally cemented metal single tooth restorations.

DATA

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) investigating indirect adhesively-luted ceramic restorations compared to metal or metal-based cemented restorations in permanent posterior teeth.

SOURCES

Three electronic databases (PubMed, CENTRAL (Cochrane) and Embase) were screened. No language or time restrictions were applied. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were done in duplicate. Risk of Bias and level of evidence was graded using Risk of Bias 2.0 tool and Grade Profiler 3.6.

RESULTS

A total of 3056 articles were found by electronic databases. Finally, four RCTs were selected. Overall, 443 restorations of which 212 were adhesively-luted ceramic restorations and 231 conventionally cemented metal restorations have been placed in 314 patients (age: 22-72 years). The highest annual failure rates were found for ceramic restorations ranging from 2.1% to 5.6%. Lower annual failure rates were found for metal (gold) restorations ranging from 0% to 2.1%. Meta-analysis could be performed for adhesively-luted ceramic vs. conventionally cemented metal restorations. Conventionally cemented metal restoration showed a significantly lower failure rate than adhesively-luted ceramic ones (visual-tactile assessment: Risk Ratio (RR)[95%CI]=0.31[0.16,0.57], low level of evidence). Furthermore, all studies showed a high risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Conventionally cemented metal restorations revealed significantly lower failure rates compared to adhesively-luted ceramic ones, although the selected sample was small and with medium follow-up periods with high risks of bias.

Long-term clinical performance and complications of zirconia-based tooth- and implant-supported fixed prosthodontic restorations: A summary of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVES

To present an overview on systematic reviews on prosthodontic zirconia restorations and to discuss long-term complications as well as information on anatomical and functional changes to the masticatory system.

DATA/SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Trip medical, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for systematic reviews up to February 2021. Bias was assessed and clinical survival and complications were analyzed.

STUDY SELECTION

38 eligible articles published between 2006 and 2021 were included. The reviews were based on 128 in vivo studies on approximately 10,000 zirconia restorations. 5-year cumulative survival rates varied between 91.2% and 95.9% for tooth-supported (TS) single crowns (SC), 89.4% and 100% for TS multi-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDP), 97.1% and 97.6% for implant-supported (IS) SCs and 93.0% and 100% for IS FDPs. Chipping was the most often technical complication, followed by framework fracture, loss of retention, marginal discrepancies/discoloration, occlusal roughness and abutment/screw loosening. Color mismatch was the only esthetic complication. Biological complications were caries, endodontic complications, tooth fracture, periodontal disease, abrasion/attrition, persisting pain, high sensitivity, peri‑implantitis and soft tissue issues. Patients with bruxism were only examined sporadically.

CONCLUSIONS

5-year results for zirconia restorations were satisfactory. The predominant technical problem of veneering fractures could be overcome with adapted design or fabrication and application of monolithic restorations, but reviews of clinical studies on this subject are rare. The impact of zirconia restorations on the masticatory system remains unclear.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Zirconia restorations are experiencing a rapidly increasing use in dental practice. Being highly wear-resistant, hard and durable, it can be assumed that they do not follow natural abrasion and changes in the masticatory system. Possible long-term effects on the stomatognathic system as a whole should therefore be considered.

Treatment options for large posterior restorations: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The best treatment option for large caries in permanent posterior teeth is still a matter of uncertainty in dental literature. The authors conducted a network meta-analysis to address the challenges related to rehabilitation of these teeth.

TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED

The authors selected prospective and retrospective studies that compared at least 2 different treatment alternatives for permanent teeth with a minimum of 5 years of follow-up. The authors searched databases from MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science in October 2019 without language or year of publication restrictions.

RESULTS

From 11,263 studies identified, 43 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the final review. Only 13 studies were randomized controlled trials and were classified as low risk of bias. Gold (annual failure rate of 0.29%) and metal ceramic (annual failure rate of 0.52%) crowns performed better for indirect restorations and direct resin composite performed better for direct restorations (annual failure rate of 2.19%). The most substantial comparisons were between feldspathic and glass ceramics, followed by direct resin composite and amalgam; there were no statistically significant differences between these interventions. Results of the pairwise meta-analysis showed mainly glass ionomer as significantly more prone to failure than amalgam and direct composite resin.

CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Reference standard direct and indirect materials except for glass ionomer can be used for restorations of large posterior caries.

CAD/CAM or conventional ceramic materials restorations longevity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the difference in longevity of tooth-supported ceramic prostheses designed by conventional and computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) techniques.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers searched the Web of Science, PubMed, SCOPUS and LILACS databases between 1966 and October 2017. Clinical studies that compared the survival rate of CAD/CAM against conventional restorations were included.

RESULTS

Eleven randomized controlled trials and three prospective studies were included, n=14. Three types of tooth-supported restorations were searched in the included studies: single crown, multiple-unit and partial ceramic crown. The follow-up of patients in the studies ranged from 24 to 84 months. A total of 1209 restorations had been placed in 957 patients in the included trials, and failures were analyzed by type and material restoration. From a total of 72 restoration failures, the CAD/CAM system resulted in a 1.84 (IC95%: 1.28-2.63) higher risk than conventional manufacturing of ceramic restoration. Nevertheless, when drop-outs were included as a failure risk, the CAD/CAM system resulted in a risk of 1.32 (IC95%: 1.10-1.58). Multilevel analysis of tooth-supported ceramic restorations, considering drop-outs as successes, resulted in rates of 1.48 and 2.62 failures per 100 restoration-years for the controls and CAD/CAM groups, respectively. Considering drop-outs as failures, we found rates of 4.23 and 5.88 failures per 100 restoration-years for the controls and CAD/CAM groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The meta-analysis results suggest that the longevity of a tooth-supported ceramic prostheses made by CAD/CAM manufacturing is lower than that of crowns mad by the conventional technique.

Metal-free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations

BACKGROUND

Fixed prosthodontic treatment (crowns, fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), complete arch prostheses) involves the use of several different materials to replace missing tooth structure. Traditionally full metal or metal frameworks veneered with ceramic (metal-ceramic (MC)) have been used. In recent years several different metal-free systems have become available to clinicians and patients. In general, metal-free restorations should allow practitioners to better reproduce natural tooth colour, avoiding shortcomings of MC restorations. The comparative in service clinical performance of fixed prosthodontic treatments of different materials is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of metal-free materials for prosthodontic restorations compared to metal-ceramic or other conventional all-metal materials.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (searched 3 May 2017), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 4) in the Cochrane Library (searched 3 May 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 3 May 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 3 May 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials (searched 3 May 2017). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which the clinical performance of metal-free fixed prosthodontic restorations was compared with metal-ceramic (MC) or other conventional restorations in adult patients requiring prosthodontic treatment. RCTs in which the clinical performance of different kinds of metal-free systems were compared among themselves were also considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Trial authors were contacted for missing information. Available results for the outcomes of interest of the systematic review of the studies included were tabulated as they could not be included in a formal meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials involving a total of 448 participants were included. We judged two trials to be at unclear risk of bias and seven to be at high risk of bias. The majority of items of risk of bias were evaluated to be at unclear or high risk level in more than 50% of the included trials. Each trial except two was addressing a different type of intervention. All evidence was rated as being of very low quality due to problems with risk of bias and imprecision of results, the latter being due to very small sample sizes, low event rates, 95% confidence intervals including the possibility of benefit for both the test and control groups, or combinations of these problems. This means that we are very uncertain about all of the results presented in this review.One trial compared metal-free single crowns (full contour zirconia) to cast gold single crowns in 224 participants and found insufficient evidence of a difference in failure rate after one year, but after five years there was some evidence of a benefit for the gold crowns. There was insufficient evidence of a difference for crown complications at either time of assessment.One trial compared three-unit metal-free FDPs (lithium disilicate) to three-unit metal-ceramic FDPs in 37 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference in bridge failure at one and six years, but some evidence of a benefit for the lithium disilicate group in terms of bridge complications at six years. One trial compared zirconia-ceramic FDPs to metal-ceramic FDPs in 34 participants but found insufficient evidence of a difference in bridge failures (i.e. no failures in either treatment group), bridge complications or patients' aesthetic evaluation at any time of assessment up to three years.One trial compared metal-free cantilevered FDPs to metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs in 21 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference for any primary outcome: bridge failures (i.e. no failures in either treatment group), bridge complications, or patients' aesthetic evaluation at any time of assessment up to three years.One trial compared metal-free implant-supported screw retained single crowns (zirconia veneered with feldspathic ceramic) to metal-ceramic implant-supported screw-retained single crowns in 20 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference for any primary outcome: crown failures (i.e. no failures in either treatment group), crown complications, or satisfaction/aesthetic evaluation at any time of assessment up to two years.Two trials compared metal-free implant abutments (zirconia) to metal implant abutments both supporting single crowns in 50 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference in abutment failure at one year.One trial compared metal-free implant-supported FDPs made of two different types of zirconia ceramic in 18 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference in failures at any time of assessment up to 10 years (i.e. no failures in either treatment group). There was some evidence of a benefit for the zirconia-toughened alumina group in terms of complications (chipping).One trial compared metal-free tooth-supported FDPs made with two different veneering techniques (pressed versus layered) in 40 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference for failures (i.e. no failures in either treatment group) or complications at any time of assessment up to three years.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of metal-free materials for fixed prosthodontic treatment over metal-ceramic or other type of standard restorations. The overall quality of existing evidence was very low, therefore great caution should be exercised when generalising the results of the included trials. Until more evidence becomes available clinicians should continue to base decisions on which material to use for fixed prosthodontic treatment on their own clinical experience, whilst taking into consideration the individual circumstances and preferences of their patients. There is urgent need of properly designed RCTs.