Assessment of Antagonist Enamel Wear and Clinical Performance of Full-Contour Monolithic Zirconia Crowns: One-Year Results of a Prospective Study

A two-year clinical trial of enamel wear opposing 5Y-TZP and lithium disilicate crowns

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Clinical information on enamel wear opposing 5 mol% yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (5Y-TZP) or lithium disilicate crowns is lacking. Moreover, the effect of surface roughness on the wear of enamel antagonists remains unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical study was to quantify the vertical wear and total volume of wear while also measuring the surface roughness of antagonists at 6-month intervals over 2 years.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A tooth-supported first molar 5Y-TZP Lava Esthetic Fluorescent Zirconia crown or an IPS e.max CAD lithium disilicate crown was randomly provided for 24 participants (n=12). The contralateral first molar and opposite teeth were the natural enamel controls. The crowns were fabricated using computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technology and then polished. The data were gathered every 6 months at recall appointments with an intraoral scanner and a polyvinyl siloxane impression. A 3-dimensional (3D) comparative software program was used to measure the maximum vertical and volume loss on opposing enamel, as well as on the enamel control on the opposite side of the mouth. The surface of epoxy resin replicas was analyzed using a scanning electron microscope. The surface roughness of the cusp replica was measured with a 3D laser microscope. The crown's antagonist enamel and natural enamel wear were compared using a 2-way repeated measure ANOVA (α=.05).

RESULTS

No significant difference was found in the average volume loss between the crown's antagonist enamel (ZTE 0.042 ±0.005 mm3, LTE 0.048 ±0.006 mm3) and the enamel control (ZCE 0.046 ±0.004 mm3, LCE 0.050 ±0.005 mm3) (P>.05). No significant difference was found in surface roughness between the crown's antagonist enamel (antagonist enamel of zirconia group [ZTE] 0.7 ±0.3 µm, antagonist enamel of lithium disilicate group [LTE] 0.6 ±0.3 µm) and the enamel control (enamel control of zirconia group [ZCE] 0.7 ±0.3 µm, enamel control of lithium disilicate group [LCE] 0.5 ±0.2 µm) in both zirconia and lithium disilicate groups (P>.05). Also, no correlation was found between the amount of wear and the roughness of the surface. The wear patterns observed on the opposing enamel surfaces of the monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate materials were found to be similar to those seen on natural enamel.

CONCLUSIONS

A 2-year clinical investigation found that polished lithium disilicate and 5Y-TZP crowns did not affect enamel wear more than enamel against enamel, contrary to laboratory studies. Another finding revealed that surface roughness did not significantly affect wear.

Qualitative surface roughness of lithium disilicate endo-crown for pulpotomized primary molars

Rehabilitation of pulpotomized primary molars with an appropriate restoration is essential for recovering function and safeguarding the durability of the treatment. This study aimed to assess and compare the surface roughness of stainless steel (ST) crowns, zirconia (ZR) crowns, fiberglass (FG) crowns, and lithium disilicate (LD) endo-crowns as a restoration for pulpotomized primary molars also, evaluating the surface roughness of their antagonists. Sixty pulpotomized primary mandibular first molars were used for qualitative surface roughness evaluation and divided into four groups (n = 15/group) according to the crown type (group-ST, group-ZR, group-FG, group-LD). While the other sixty sound, unprepared primary maxillary first molars were used for evaluation of their surface roughness against the tested crowns. Specimens' preparation and cementation were carried out according to each crown type and manufacturer's instructions. The surface roughness was done using a two-body wear test. The data were statistically analyzed. All tested crowns showed an increased change in surface roughness, except group-ZR, which had the least change in surface roughness after mechanical wear with no statistically significant difference(P = 0.681). All crown types significantly increased the surface roughness of their antagonists after mechanical wear, except group-ST which showed insignificant affection (p ≥ 0.05). Zirconia crowns and lithium disilicate endo-crowns had the least change in surface roughness compared to other groups while SSCs showed the least tooth loss in the antagonist enamel.

Stress distribution on implant- supported zirconia crown of maxillary first molar: effect of oblique load on natural and antagonist tooth

This study evaluated the stress distribution on an implant-supported zirconia crown of a mandibular first molar subjected to oblique loading by occlusal contact with the natural maxillary first molar by using the 3D finite element method. Two virtual models were made to simulate the following situations: (1) occlusion between maxillary and mandibular natural first molars; (2) occlusion between zirconia implant-supported ceramic crown on a mandibular first molar and maxillary natural first molar. The models were designed virtually in a modeling program or CAD (Computer Aided Design) (Rhinoceros). An oblique load of 100 N was uniformly applied to the zirconia framework of the crown. The results were obtained by the Von Mises criterion of stress distribution. Replacement of the mandibular tooth by an implant caused a slight increase in stress on portions of the maxillary tooth roots. The crown of the maxillary model in occlusion with natural antagonist tooth showed 12% less stress when compared with the maxillary (model in occlusion with the) implant-supported crown. The mandibular crown of the implant show 35% more stress when compared with the mandibular antagonist crown on the natural tooth. The presence of the implant to replace the mandibular tooth increased the stresses on the maxillary tooth, especially in the region of the mesial and distal buccal roots.

Antagonist enamel tooth wear produced by different dental ceramic systems: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the amount of enamel tooth wear induced by different antagonistic ceramic crown materials in the posterior area within a follow-up period up to 24 months in function. A network meta-analysis was performed to assess the effect of the materials on the mean vertical loss (MVL) of the antagonist enamel tooth surface.

DATA

Main search terms used in combination: ceramic, dental materials, metal ceramic, tooth wear and dental enamel.

SOURCES

An electronic search was conducted in PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL plus hand-searching.

STUDY SELECTION

Eligibility criteria included clinical studies reporting on MVL on antagonist's tooth up to 24 months following the permanent crown placement. From a total of 5697 articles, 7 studies reporting on 261 crowns for 177 subjects with 3 ceramic materials (Lithium disilicate, metal-ceramic, monolithic zirconia) were included. Among all, metal-ceramic and zirconia caused significantly higher enamel tooth wear on antagonist teeth, representing 82.5 µm [54.4; 110.6]) and 40.1 µm [22.2; 58.0]) more MVL than natural teeth group. In contrast, lithium disilicate showed only 5.0 µm [-48.2; 58.1]) more MVL than occurs on opposing natural teeth.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review demonstrated that prosthodontic ceramic materials produced significantly more antagonist enamel tooth wear than opposing natural enamel tooth wear, and ceramic material type was correlated to the degree of enamel tooth wear. Additional well-conducted, randomized controlled trials with homogeneous specimens are required due to inadequate sample size and number of the clinical studies included in the analyses.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The amount of wear caused by different restorative materials has a high influence on the antagonistic natural teeth and should therefore be evaluated intensively by the dentist.

Effect of zirconia surface conditioning before glazing on the wear of opposing enamel: an in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the wear of natural teeth opposing 3 mol% yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (3Y-TZP) with different surface conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty 3Y-TZP specimens were randomly assigned to six groups (n = 10), differing in surface condition. In three groups, the samples underwent glazing-with the glaze applied to roughened (i.e., 106-µm-grit diamond-finished), as-sintered, and polished zirconia. The three remaining groups consisted of unglazed specimens: solely polished samples and diamond-finished samples (106-µm-grit and 46-µm-grit) without further conditioning. Two-body wear was evaluated at extracted, non-carious molars (n = 60), which served as antagonists in chewing simulation (10,000 masticatory cycles, 49N load). As a control, natural teeth with intact enamel surfaces were tested against natural molars (n = 10). All samples were 3D-scanned before and after the chewing simulation (7 Series, Straumann). Volume loss was calculated (Inspect Software, GOM), and statistically analyzed (SPSS Statistics 24, IBM).

RESULTS

Volume loss of the natural antagonists decreased in the following order: 106-µm-grit diamond-finished zirconia (4.6 ± 2.5 mm3), glazed 106-µm-grit diamond-finished zirconia (3.8 ± 1.1 mm3), glazed as-sintered zirconia (3.5 ± 0.9 mm3), 46-µm-grit diamond-finished zirconia (1.7 ± 0.6 mm3), control (1.6 ± 0.7 mm3), glazed polished zirconia (1.4 ± 0.5 mm3), and solely polishing (0.4 ± 0.2 mm3). Even when polishing the surfaces before glazing, volume loss was not mitigated to the same extent as after polishing alone.

CONCLUSIONS

The zirconia surface condition beneath the glazing influences antagonist wear. Although polishing before glazing resulted in acceptable levels of antagonist wear, this approach did not yield as favorable results as polishing alone.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

For operators favoring glazing, pre-polishing the zirconia surface could be advantageous to reduce wear.

Digital workflow for monolithic and veneered zirconia and metal-ceramic posterior fixed partial dentures: A five-year prospective randomized clinical trial

Purpose To evaluate and compare the survival, success rates, and biological and technical complications of three-unit posterior monolithic and veneered zirconia and metal-ceramic (MC) posterior fixed partial dentures (FPDs) fabricated using a digital workflow and computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) over a 5-year follow-up.Methods Ninety patients in need of three-unit posterior FPDs were randomized to receive monolithic zirconia (MZ), veneered zirconia (VZ), and MC restorations (n = 30 each). Teeth preparations were scanned using an intraoral scanner, and restorations were milled and cemented with resin cement. Clinical performance and periodontal parameters were assessed at baseline and yearly up to 5 years after insertion. Data analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method, Friedman test, and Wilcoxon signed-rank test with Bonferroni correction and Mann-Whitney U test.Results The 5-year survival rates of the MZ, VZ, and MC FPDs were 87%, 97%, and 100%, respectively (P = 0.04). Most complications were biological in nature. Only one MZ FPD fractured 58 months after placement. All the restorations were assessed as satisfactory at each recall. Differences were found in the gingival index score over time in the VZ and MC groups. The margin index remained stable throughout the follow-up period in both zirconia groups.Conclusions The results of this study suggest that using a digital workflow to fabricate posterior FPDs is an adequate treatment option and that monolithic zirconia could be a viable alternative to metal-ceramic or veneered zirconia. However, further long-term studies are necessary to provide stronger evidence in patients with bruxism.

Clinical outcomes of tooth-supported monolithic zirconia vs. porcelain-veneered zirconia fixed dental prosthesis, with an additional focus on the cement type: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the failure rates and the prevalence of technical complications between full-coverage tooth-supported monolithic zirconia (MZ) and porcelain-veneered zirconia (PVZ) fixed dental prosthesis, based on a systematic literature review.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed in three databases, supplemented by hand searching. Several statistical methods were used.

RESULTS

Seventy-four publications reported 6370 restorations (4264 PVZ; 2106 MZ; 8200 abutment teeth; 3549 patients), followed up until 152 months. A total of 216 prostheses failed, and survival was statistically significant different between groups. PVZ had higher occurrence of complications than MZ; the difference was especially greater for either minor or major chipping. The difference in prevalence of either minor or major chipping was statistically significant for PVZ prostheses between cementation with glass ionomer and adhesive resin cement (higher), adhesive resin and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC, higher), and between RMGIC (higher) and glass ionomer cement. For MZ the difference was significant only for minor chipping between RMGIC (higher) and adhesive resin cement. Abutment teeth to PVZ prostheses more often lost vitality. Decementation was not observed with RMGIC. Air abrasion did not seem to clinically decrease the decementation risk. The 5-year difference in the occurrence of minor or major chipping between MZ and PVZ prostheses was statistically significant, but nor for catastrophic fracture.

CONCLUSION

Tooth-supported PVZ prostheses present higher failure and complication rates than MZ prosthesis. The difference in complications is striking when it comes to chipping.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Awareness of the outcome differences between different types of zirconia prostheses is important for clinical practice.

Clinical Outcomes of Monolithic Zirconia Crowns on Posterior Natural Abutments Performed by Final Year Dental Medicine Students: A Prospective Study with a 5-Year Follow-Up

The conventional metal-ceramic is still considered the gold standard in fixed prosthetics especially in terms of longevity. Among alternative materials used, Monolithic Zirconia has shown the capability to reconcile excellent biomechanical properties with acceptable aesthetic performance and to overcome several inconveniences related to veneer restorations. This study aims to clinically evaluate Monolithic Zirconia prosthetic crowns on natural abutments in the posterior sectors, performed by final-year dental medicine students (undoubtedly with less experience in the management of such material) by the standardized California Dental Association score system evaluation, to better understand the viability of Monolithic Zirconia. This prospective study was carried out at the Dental School of the University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Italy. Prosthetic rehabilitation included single crowns or a short pontic prosthesis with maximum one intermediate. Final-year dental students performed tooth reduction under the supervision of three expert tutors. The California Dental Association systematics (based on color, surface, anatomical shape, and marginal integrity) were adopted to evaluate the prosthetic maintenance status over time. Annual follow-up visits were re-evaluated by the same parameters each year. Univariate logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate outcomes and the Kaplan-Meier plot to report survival. The sample consists of 40 crowns performed on 31 patients, 15 males (48.4%) and 16 females (51.6%) with an average age of 59.3 years. The clinical cases subjected to experimental study were found to be "Excellent" (1a/2a/3a/4a) in 34 cases (85%), "Acceptable" in 4 cases (10%), and "To be re-done" in 2 cases (failures) (5%). Our conclusive data support the predictability of Monolithic Zirconia restorations on natural posterior abutments at a long-term follow-up of five years, even when performed by less-experienced clinicians.

Clinical report of six-month follow-up after cementing PEEK crown on molars

We conducted a six-month clinical follow-up on computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing-fabricated molar polyetheretherketone PEEK crowns to investigate their therapeutic effect. Only the PEEK crowns were examined as our study focused on short-term clinical evaluation of the new PEEK material. Twenty-three cases of PEEK crowns placed on the molars of 20 subjects (7 males and 13 females, mean age: 60.6 ± 14.2 years) were included in the study. The evaluation items were the condition of the crowns at the time of cementation and after six months, patient satisfaction, masticatory ability, and occlusal force. Mann-Whitney U tests with a significance level of 5% were used to examine the difference in glucose concentration by masticatory ability, occlusal pressure, and occlusal force, with and without PEEK crowns. The occlusion, margin fit, and contact of all 23 cases at the time of cementing were good. Six months after cementation, there was no crown desorption, fracture or crack, and prosthodontics was not needed in the 22 cases (one patient dropped out). No wear of the dental antagonist was observed. Patient satisfaction was generally high. There was no significant difference in masticatory ability between the groups with and without PEEK crowns. The subject's occlusal force was within the normal range. PEEK crowns used on molars can replace metal crowns and hold promise for an appropriate and effective treatment.

Enamel Wear of Antagonist Tooth Caused by Dental Ceramics: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the wear of the antagonist tooth in ceramic restorations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study was carried out based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) recommendations; it was also registered in PROSPERO (register number: CRD42022316252). Three databases were consulted in the literature search, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. The citation searching was conducted by two researchers independently. The clinical studies that evaluated wear in antagonist teeth concerning ceramic restoration were included. Twelve articles were selected after eliminating duplicates ones and applying the inclusion criteria, and two were chosen through citation. Fourteen articles were considered for the qualitative and quantitative analysis (meta-regression and meta-analysis).

RESULTS

The mean linear wear of the antagonist tooth in relation to feldspathic was 8.914 μm, for lithium disilicate it was 0.018 μm, and for zirconia it was 0.257 μm. The mean volumetric wear of the antagonist tooth in relation to feldspathic was 0.273 mm3, for hybrid ceramic it was 0.030 mm3, for lithium disilicate it was 0.018 mm3, and for zirconia it was 0.014 mm3. The mean natural tooth wear was 0.7974 μm per month. Tooth wear caused by zirconia at six months was 31.755 μm, at 12 months it was 24.648 μm, and at 24 months it was 20.662 μm.

CONCLUSIONS

Feldspathic produces greater wear of the antagonist tooth from ceramic restorations linearly and volumetrically. In addition, zirconia generates the least wear that will decrease over time, and it will be equal to or less than the natural wear in the tooth.

Randomized clinical trial comparing monolithic and veneered zirconia three-unit posterior fixed partial dentures in a complete digital flow: three-year follow-up

Objectives

To evaluate and to compare the clinical performance and survival rate of posterior monolithic and veneered zirconia fixed partial dentures (FPDs).

Material and methods

Sixty 3-unit posterior FPDs were included in the study. The patients were randomly distributed into two groups (n = 30 each) to receive either a monolithic (Zenostar T, Wieland Dental) or veneered zirconia (IPS e.max ZirCAD, Ivoclar Vivadent) FPD. Each patient received only 1 FPD. Tooth preparations were scanned (Trios 3, 3Shape), designed (Dental System 2016, 3 Shape), milled (Zenotec CAM 3.2, Wieland Dental), and cemented with a resin cement. Technical and biological outcomes and periodontal parameters were assessed. Data analysis was made using the Friedman and the Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with the Bonferroni correction and the Mann–Whitney U test.

Results

The survival rate at 3 years was 100% for veneered and 90% for monolithic zirconia restorations. Three monolithic zirconia FPDs were lost because of biologic complications. The main complication in the veneered zirconia FPDs was the fracture of the veneering ceramic in 4 of the veneered zirconia FPDs. No fracture of the frameworks was observed in any of the groups. All restorations were assessed as satisfactory after 3 years. No differences in periodontal parameters were observed between the groups.

Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that monolithic zirconia and complete digital flow could be a viable alternative to veneered zirconia in the posterior regions.

Clinical relevance

The monolithic zirconia restorations with a digital workflow can be a viable alternative in posterior fixed partial dentures, with good periodontal outcomes.

Clinical trial registration number

ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier NCT 04,879,498).

Prospective Clinical Evaluation of Posterior Third-Generation Monolithic Zirconia Crowns Fabricated with Complete Digital Workflow: Two-Year Follow-Up

Clinical studies on the behavior of posterior translucent monolithic zirconia restorations are lacking. We assessed the clinical outcome and survival rate of posterior third-generation monolithic zirconia crowns over a 2-year period. A total of 24 patients, requiring 30 posterior full-contour restorations were selected. All abutments were scanned, and crowns were milled and cemented with a self-adhesive dual cure cement. Crowns were assessed using the California Dental Association’s criteria. Gingival status was assessed by evaluating the gingival index, plaque index, periodontal probing depth of the abutments and control teeth, and the margin index of the abutment teeth. Statistical analyses were performed using the Friedman and the Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. During the 2-year follow-up, no biological or mechanical complications were observed, and the survival and success rate was 100%. All restorations ranked as satisfactory throughout the follow-up period. The gingival index and plaque index were worse at the end of the 2-year follow-up. The margin index was stable during the 2 years of clinical service. No significant differences were recorded in periodontal parameters between crowns and control teeth. Third-generation monolithic zirconia could be a reliable alternative to posterior metal–ceramic and second-generation monolithic zirconia posterior crowns.

Clinical performance of monolithic CAD/CAM tooth-supported zirconia restorations: systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the survival rate, biological complications, technical complications, and clinical behavior of single crowns supported by teeth made up in monolithic zirconia with CAD/CAM technology.

STUDY SELECTION

An extensive electronic search was conducted through Medline/PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Additional manual search was performed on the references of included articles to identify relevant publications. Two reviewers independently performed the selection and electronic and manual search.

RESULTS

From nine articles included, there was a total of 594 participants and 1657 single-tooth restorations with a mean exposure time of 1.07 years, and follow-up period between 0.3 and 2.1 years. All studies showed a moderate level of quality, with a consequent moderate possibility of associated bias, using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), with survival rate (SR) ranging between 91% to 100%. Bleeding on probing (BOP) were reported with an average value of 29.12%. Marginal integrity showed high success rate values for the observation periods, except for one that included patients with bruxism which obtained a SR of 31.60%. Failures and/or fractures, mostly total and requiring replacement, were observed in three studies. Linear regression showed that there was no statistical correlation between survival rate and type of cementation and the average years of follow-up (p=0.730 e p=0.454). There was high heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 93.74% and Q = 79.672).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitation of this study, monolithic zirconia might be considered as a possible option for restoring single crowns, especially in the posterior zone.

Laboratory Characterization of In-Service Full-Mouth Rehabilitation with Monolithic Translucent Zirconia Restorations

The chance to critically and microscopically inspect the quality of bonded restorations once they are delivered to the patient after several pre-cementation steps is rare or nonexistent. Replicas of in-service restorations can provide a wealth of information on the integrity of the restorations and moreover make it possible to bring this information to the laboratory for further detailed analysis. This study aimed to characterize the epoxy replicas of 27 cemented monolithic yttria-stabilized zirconia crowns of the maxillary and mandibular arch to assess surface roughness, topography, and symmetry. The topography of the facial, lingual, and occlusal/incisal surfaces of each crown was observed under the optical microscope and further characterized using the scanning electron microscope. Surface roughness measurements were performed using the atomic force microscope. The optical microscope was used to measure the golden proportion and visible width of the anterior maxillary crowns. Surface damage consistent with unpolished adjustment was identified mostly in the occlusal surface of the posterior teeth. Other irregularities, such as scratch marks, small pits, and coarse pits were also found. The surface roughness had great variability. Not all of the anterior maxillary and mandibular teeth followed the golden proportion concept. This study design allows in vitro characterization of in-service restorations. It provides a framework for using replicas for early identification of patterns or features that can trigger fracture and for analysis of morphology and symmetry.

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.

Survival and complications of monolithic ceramic for tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Although recent studies have reported the success of implant-supported monolithic restorations, consensus on the use of monolithic ceramic restorations is lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the survival and biological and technical complication rates of monolithic single crowns and fixed partial dentures (FPDs).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic search was conducted by 2 independent authors on the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale and Cochrane risk of bias tool were used to assess the quality and risk of bias of the included studies. Meta-analysis was performed by using the R software program.

RESULTS

The search identified 763 articles, 18 of which met the eligibility criteria. A total of 15 studies evaluated monolithic ceramic single crowns, and 4 studies evaluated FPDs. The studies included 1061 monolithic single crowns (524 lithium disilicate, 461 zirconia, and 76 polymer-infiltrated ceramic network [PICN]) and 104 FPDs (36 lithium disilicate and 68 zirconia). Meta-analysis of single-arm studies indicated the proportion of survival, biological, and technical complication rates of 1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0% to 3%), 1% (CI: 0% to 4%), and 2% (CI: 1% to 4%), respectively, for single crowns, independent of ceramic material, and 3% (CI: 0% to 34%), 5% (CI: 1% to 21%), and 5% (CI: 1% to 21%) for FPDs, respectively. Only 5 studies performed a direct comparison between monolithic and veneered ceramic restorations, and no significant difference was observed in terms of survival (risk ratio [RR]: 0.68; CI: 0.25-1.91; P=.96), biological (RR: 0.69; CI: 0.31-1.53; P=.35), and technical complication rates (RR: 0.87; CI: 0.40-1.88; P=.29).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of monolithic ceramic can be considered a favorable treatment for tooth-supported single crowns and FPDs, with high survival and low complication rates. However, further randomized controlled trials are needed to reassess these clinical performances, mainly by comparing them with the performance of veneered restorations.

Quantitative analysis on the wear of monolithic zirconia crowns on antagonist teeth

BACKGROUND

The present study aimed to quantitate the wear of the highly transparent Yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystals (Y-TZP) ceramic monolithic zirconia crown on the enamel in vivo and discuss the prone position of the wear and the underlying mechanism.

METHODS

A total of 43 patients with 43 posterior teeth were selected for full zirconia crown restoration and examined immediately, at 6 months, and at 1 year after restoration. During the follow-up visit, the fine impression of the patients' monolithic zirconia crowns, the antagonist teeth, the corresponding contralateral natural teeth, the super plaster cast, and epoxy resin model was ontained. The model of epoxy resin was observed under a stereo microscope, and the microstructure parts were observed under a scanning electron microscope.

RESULTS

After 1 year, the mean depth and volume of wearing of the monolithic zirconia crown were the smallest (all P < 0.01), while those of the antagonist teeth were significantly larger than those of the natural teeth (P < 0.0001), and no significant difference was found among the natural teeth (P = 0.3473, P = 0.6996). The amount of wear after one year was remarkably higher than that at 6 months (P < 0.0001). The microscopic observation revealed the tendency of wearing of the monolithic zirconia crown on the antagonist teeth at the protruding early contact points. Electron micrographs of tooth scars showed that the wearing mechanism of the monolithic zirconia crown on natural teeth was mainly abrasive and fatigue wear.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the self-wearing is insignificant, the monolithic zirconia crown can cause wear of the antagonist teeth via occlusal or early contact significantly; the amount of wearing is higher than that of natural teeth and increases over time. The wearing mechanism is mainly abrasive and fatigue wear.

Evaluation of the wear of glazed and polished zirconia crowns and the opposing natural teeth: A clinical pilot study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Clinical studies on the wear properties of different zirconia surfaces are lacking. Selecting a surface that causes and undergoes minimal wear will help improve clinical outcomes.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate and compare the wear over 1 year use of glazed zirconia (GZ) and polished zirconia (PZ) crowns opposing natural enamel and the wear of natural enamel opposing PZ and GZ crowns.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This prospective, split mouth, randomized clinical trial included 14 participants requiring complete coverage crowns on first molars, bilaterally, in a completely dentate mandibular arch. GZ and PZ crowns were cemented according to a randomization chart. Polyvinyl siloxane impressions were made immediately and 1 year after the cementation of the crowns. The respective casts were scanned by using a 3D scanner and a software program to measure the amount of linear wear of zirconia crowns and opposing natural teeth. Wear was observed in 8 groups: PZ crowns, GZ crowns, natural enamel opposing natural enamel in the molar and premolar regions (NE-M and NE-PM), natural enamel opposing PZ crowns in the molar region (NE-PZ-M), natural enamel opposing GZ crowns in the molar region (NE-GZ-M), natural enamel opposing PZ crowns in the premolar region (NE-PZ-PM), and natural enamel opposing GZ crowns in the premolar region (NE-GZ-PM). A descriptive analysis was followed by comparison between groups by using a repeated-measure ANOVA with post hoc adjustments (α=.05).

RESULTS

The mean wear (μm) observed was as follows (in ascending order): PZ crowns (13 ±3), NE-PM (13 ±1), GZ crowns (27 ±9), NE-M (34 ±3), NE-PZ-PM (44 ±18), NE-PZ-M (63 ±22), NE-GZ-PM (69 ±21), NE-GZ-M (113 ±33). Wear of GZ and PZ crowns was less than wear of NE-M. The difference was statistically significant when comparing PZ with NE-M (P<.001, CI=-17 to -24). Wear of NE-GZ-M and NE-PZ-M was higher than wear of NE-M, with a statistically significant difference (P<.001, CI=-49 to -107 and P =.004, CI=-8 to -49, respectively). Wear of NE-GZ-M was more than that of NE-PZ-M, and the difference was statistically significant (P<.001, CI=-68 to -32). Wear of NE-PZ-PM and NE-GZ-PM was also more than the wear of NE-PM, and the difference was statistically significant (P<.001, CI=-17 to -43 and P<.001, CI=-39 to -70).

CONCLUSIONS

PZ and GZ crowns wear substantially with time, with lesser wear observed in PZ crowns. PZ and GZ crowns also cause more wear in opposing natural enamel than natural enamel antagonists, with the highest wear caused by GZ crowns.

Wear in Antagonist Teeth Produced by Monolithic Zirconia Crowns: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the wear sustained in the natural antagonist tooth in cases of full-coverage fixed-base prosthetic restorations or monolithic zirconia tooth-supported crowns, as well as to determine the wear in the restoration itself, both in the short- and medium-term and considering the factors that may influence wear.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis, based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations, of clinical studies that evaluated wear in antagonist teeth in relation to fixed-prosthesis monolithic zirconia crowns. A total of 5 databases were consulted in the literature search: Pubmed-Medline, Cochrane, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science (WOS). After eliminating duplicated articles and applying the inclusion criteria, eight articles were selected for the qualitative analysis and four for the quantitative analysis.

RESULTS

Mean maximum wear of the antagonist tooth in relation to monolithic zirconia crowns of magnitude 95.45 µm (CI at 95% 79.57-111.33) was observed. By using a meta-regression model (R2 = 0.92) the significant effect of time in maximum wear rate (p < 0.001) was observed, estimated at 6.13 µm per month (CI at 95% 3.99-8.27). Furthermore, monolithic zirconia crowns are subject to a mean maximum wear of 58.47 µm (CI 95% 45.44-71.50). By using a meta-regression model (R2 = 0.53) the significant effect of time in the maximum wear value was observed (p = 0.053), estimated at 3.40 µm per month (CI al 95% -0.05-6.85).

CONCLUSIONS

Monolithic zirconia crowns lead to a progressive maximum wear of the antagonist tooth over time which is greater than the maximum wear sustained in the crown itself. It is not possible to establish an objective and quantitative objection in relation to natural enamel wear or metal-ceramic crowns.

Influence of zirconia and lithium disilicate tooth- or implant-supported crowns on wear of antagonistic and adjacent teeth

PURPOSE

To investigate the influence of crown material (lithium-disilicate, 3Y-TZP zirconia) and abutment type (rigid implant, resin tooth with artificial periodontium) on wear performance of their antagonist teeth and adjacent teeth.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A mandibular left first molar (#36) with adjacent human teeth (mandibular left second premolar: #35, mandibular left second molar: #37) and antagonistic human teeth (maxillary left second premolar: #25, maxillary left first molar: #26, maxillary left second molar: #27) was prepared simulating a section of the jaw. Samples were made with extracted human molars (Reference), crowned implants (Implant), or crowned resin tooth analogues (Tooth). Crowns (tooth #36; n = 16/material) were milled from lithium-disilicate (Li, IPS e.max CAD) or 3Y-TZP zirconia (Zr, IPS e.max ZirCAD, both Ivoclar Vivadent). Thermal cycling and mechanical loading (TCML) in the chewing simulator were applied simulating 15 years of clinical service. Wear traces were analyzed (frequency [n], depth [µm]) and evaluated using scanning electron pictures. Wear results were compared by one-way-ANOVA and post-hoc-Bonferroni (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

After TCML, no visible wear traces were found on Zr. Li showed more wear traces (n = 30–31) than the reference (n = 21). Antagonistic teeth #26 showed more wear traces in contact to both ceramics (n = 27–29) than to the reference (n = 21). Strong wear traces (> 350 µm) on antagonists and their adjacent teeth were found only in crowned groups. Abutment type influenced number and depth of wear facets on the antagonistic and adjacent teeth.

CONCLUSION

The clinically relevant model with human antagonistic and adjacent teeth allowed for a limited comparison of the wear situation. The total number of wear traces and strong wear on crowns, antagonistic and adjacent teeth were influenced by crown material.

High-translucent yttria-stabilized zirconia ceramics are wear-resistant and antagonist-friendly

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate two-body wear of three zirconia ceramics stabilized with 3, 4 and 5mol% yttria and to compare their wear behavior with that of a lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic.

METHODS

Sixteen rectangular-shaped specimens made from three grades of zirconia ceramics and a lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic were polished and dynamically loaded in a chewing simulator (2kg vertical load, 2.1Hz) under water at 90°C for 1.2×10⁶ cycles (about 7 days) in the ball-on-plate mode against steatite antagonists. Surface roughness was measured before and after wear testing. Wear tracks were scanned with a non-contact 3D profilometer and super-impositions were used to determine wear loss of the antagonists. Wear surfaces were imaged by SEM. XRD and micro-Raman spectroscopy were used to characterize phase transformation and stress status in the worn and unworn areas of the zirconia ceramics.

RESULTS

Independent of fracture toughness, strength and aging-susceptibility, the three zirconia ceramics showed a similar and limited amount of wear (∼10μm in depth) and were more wear-resistant than the lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic (∼880μm in depth). Abrasive wear without obvious cracks was observed for all investigated zirconias, whereas the glass-ceramic with a lower fatigue threshold and high susceptibility to surface dissolution exhibited significant abrasion, fatigue and corrosion wear. All three zirconia ceramics yielded a lower antagonist wear than the glass-ceramic and no significant differences were found between the zirconia ceramics.

SIGNIFICANCE

In the context of this study, high-translucent zirconia ceramics stabilized with a higher yttria content, recently introduced in the dental field, were as wear-resistant and antagonist-friendly as conventional high-strength zirconia and suitable for monolithic restorations.

Clinical evaluation of monolithic zirconia crowns for posterior teeth restorations

Although all-ceramic crowns have excellent biocompatibility and esthetic appearance, chipping may occur. The mechanical properties of monolithic zirconia restorative material are superior to those of all-ceramic restorative materials, and chipping caused by chewing hard foods could be avoided. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of monolithic zirconia crowns for posterior teeth restorations.A total of 46 patients requiring posterior teeth restorations involving 49 teeth were treated with monolithic zirconia crown procedure. The treatment results were evaluated according to the modified California Dental Association criteria immediately after the procedure, and at 2, 24, 48, and 96 weeks after the procedure. The plaque index, gingival index, probing depth, crown marginal integrity, and attrition of the abutment teeth, antagonist teeth, corresponding contralateral teeth, and antagonist of the corresponding contralateral teeth were assessed. The patients were followed for up to 96 weeks.The marginal adaptation results of all 46 patients were evaluated as excellent, resulting in an excellent rate of 100%. Regarding the crown color match, only 3 cases (6.1%) were evaluated as acceptable. Marginal adaptation, anatomic form, crown margin integrity, color match, and gross fracture did not show significant differences compared with the different time points (P = .999). Surface texture at different time did not change significantly (P = .807). During the 96-week follow-up, 1 crack in the antagonist teeth was found in 1 patient. There were no significant differences in wear of the antagonist teeth at different time points (P = .972). The rate of "excellent" evaluation for crown restorations was 93.9% to 100%.The monolithic zirconia crown had no detectable adverse effects on the periodontal tissues, and the antagonist teeth attrition was small. Therefore, it has good potential in the clinical application of posterior teeth restorations in the short term.

Monolithic Zirconia: An Update to Current Knowledge. Optical Properties, Wear, and Clinical Performance

The purpose of this paper was to update the knowledge concerning the wear, translucency, as well as clinical performance of monolithic zirconia ceramics, aiming at highlighting their advantages and weaknesses through data presented in recent literature. New ultra-translucent and multicolor monolithic zirconia ceramics present considerably improved aesthetics and translucency, which, according to the literature reviewed, is similar to those of the more translucent lithium disilicate ceramics. A profound advantage is their high strength at thin geometries preserving their mechanical integrity. Based on the reviewed articles, monolithic zirconia ceramics cause minimal wear of antagonists, especially if appropriately polished, although no evidence still exists regarding the ultra-translucent compositions. Concerning the survival of monolithic zirconia restorations, the present review demonstrates the findings of the existing short-term studies, which reveal promising results after evaluating their performance for up to 5 or 7 years. Although a significant increase in translucency has been achieved, new translucent monolithic zirconia ceramics have to be further evaluated both in vitro and in vivo for their long-term potential to preserve their outstanding properties. Due to limited studies evaluating the wear properties of ultra-translucent material, no sound conclusions can be made, whereas well-designed clinical studies are urgently needed to enlighten issues of prognosis and long-term survival.