Survival of zirconia- and metal-supported fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review

Purpose: The aim of this review was to systematically evaluate and compare the frequency of veneer chipping and core fracture of zirconia fixed dental prostheses (FOPS) and porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) FDPs and determine possible influencing factors. Materials and Methods: The SCOPUS database and International Association of Dental Research abstracts were searched for clinical studies involving zirconia and PFM FDPs. Furthermore, studies that were integrated into systematic reviews on PFM FDPs were also evaluated. The principle investigators of any clinical studies on zirconia FDPs were contacted to provide additional information. Based on the available information for each FOP, a data file was constructed. Veneer chipping was divided into three grades (grade 1 = polishing, grade 2 = repair, grade 3 = replacement). To assess the frequency of veneer chipping and possible influencing factors, a piecewise exponential model was used to adjust for a study effect. Results: None of the studies on PFM FDPs (reviews and additional searching) sufficiently satisfied the criteria of this review to be included. Thirteen clinical studies on zirconia FDPs and two studies that investigated both zirconia and PFM FDPs were identified. These studies involved 664 zirconia and 134 PFM FDPs at baseline. Follow-up data were available for 595 zirconia and 127 PFM FDPs. The mean observation period was approximately 3 years for both groups. The frequency of core fracture was less than 1% in the zirconia group and 0% in the PFM group. When all studies were included, 142 veneer chippings were recorded for zirconia FDPs (24%) and 43 for PFM FDPs (34%). However, the studies differed extensively with regard to veneer chipping of zirconia: 85% of all chippings occurred in 4 studies, and 43% of all chippings included zirconia FDPs. If only studies that evaluated both types of core materials were included, the frequency of chipping was 54% for the zirconia-supported FDPs and 34% for PFM FDPs. When adjusting the survival rate for the study effect, the difference between zirconia and PFM FDPs was statistically significant for all grades of chippings (P = .001), as well as for chipping grade 3 (P = .02). If all grades of veneer chippings were taken into account, the survival of PFM FDPs was 97%, while the survival rate of the zirconia FDPs was 90% after 3 years for a typical study. For both PFM and zirconia FDPs, the frequency of grades 1 and 2 veneer chippings was considerably higher than grade 3. Veneer chipping was significantly less frequent in pressed materials than in hand-layered materials, both for zirconia and PFM FDPs (P = .04). Conclusions: Since the frequency of veneer chipping was significantly higher in the zirconia FDPs than PFM FDPs, and as refined processing procedures have started to yield better results in the laboratory, new clinical studies with these new procedures must confirm whether the frequency of veneer chipping can be reduced to the level of PFM. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23:493-502

Bond strength tests of dental adhesive systems and their correlation with clinical results : a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the variability of bond strength test results of adhesive systems (AS) and to correlate the results with clinical parameters of clinical studies investigating cervical restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Regarding the clinical studies, the internal database which had previously been used for a meta-analysis on cervical restorations was updated with clinical studies published between 2008 and 2012 by searching the PubMed and SCOPUS databases. PubMed and the International Association for Dental Research abstracts online were searched for laboratory studies on microtensile, macrotensile and macroshear bond strength tests. The inclusion criteria were (1) dentin, (2) testing of at least four adhesive systems, (3) same diameter of composite and (4) 24h of water storage prior to testing. The clinical outcome variables were retention loss, marginal discoloration, detectable margins, and a clinical index comprising the three parameters by weighing them. Linear mixed models which included a random study effect were calculated for both, the laboratory and the clinical studies. The variability was assessed by calculating a ratio of variances, dividing the variance among the estimated bonding effects obtained in the linear mixed models by the sum of all variance components estimated in these models. RESULTS: Thirty-two laboratory studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria comprising 183 experiments. Of those, 86 used the microtensile test evaluating 22 adhesive systems (AS). Twenty-seven used the macrotensile test with 17 AS, and 70 used the macroshear test with 24 AS. For 28 AS the results from clinical studies were available. Microtensile and macrotensile (Spearman rho=0.66, p=0.007) were moderately correlated and also microtensile and macroshear (Spearman rho=0.51, p=0.03) but not macroshear and macrotensile (Spearman rho=0.34, p=0.22). The effect of the adhesive system was significant for microtensile and macroshear (p<0.001) but not for macrotensile. The effect of the adhesive system could explain 36% of the variability of the microtensile test, 27% of the macrotensile and 33% of the macroshear test. For the clinical trials, about 49% of the variability of retained restorations could be explained by the adhesive system. With respect to the correlation between bond strength tests and clinical parameters, only a moderate correlation between micro- and macrotensile test results and marginal discoloration was demonstrated. However, no correlation between these tests and a retention loss or marginal integrity was shown. The correlation improved when more studies were included compared to assessing only one study. SIGNIFICANCE: The high variability of bond strength test results highlights the need to establish individual acceptance levels for a given test institute. The weak correlation of bond-strength test results with clinical parameters leads to the conclusion that one should not rely solely on bond strength tests to predict the clinical performance of an adhesive system but one should conduct other laboratory tests like tests on the marginal adaptation of fillings in extracted teeth and the retention loss of restorations in non-retentive cavities after artificial aging.