All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part I: Single crowns (SCs).

OBJECTIVE To assess the 5-year survival of metal-ceramic and all-ceramic tooth-supported single crowns (SCs) and to describe the incidence of biological, technical and esthetic complications. METHODS Medline (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) searches (2006-2013) were performed for clinical studies focusing on tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) with a mean follow-up of at least 3 years. This was complimented by an additional hand search and the inclusion of 34 studies from a previous systematic review [1,2]. Survival and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year proportions. RESULTS Sixty-seven studies reporting on 4663 metal-ceramic and 9434 all-ceramic SCs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Seventeen studies reported on metal-ceramic crowns, and 54 studies reported on all-ceramic crowns. Meta-analysis of the included studies indicated an estimated survival rate of metal-ceramic SCs of 94.7% (95% CI: 94.1-96.9%) after 5 years. This was similar to the estimated 5-year survival rate of leucit or lithium-disilicate reinforced glass ceramic SCs (96.6%; 95% CI: 94.9-96.7%), of glass infiltrated alumina SCs (94.6%; 95% CI: 92.7-96%) and densely sintered alumina and zirconia SCs (96%; 95% CI: 93.8-97.5%; 92.1%; 95% CI: 82.8-95.6%). In contrast, the 5-year survival rates of feldspathic/silica-based ceramic crowns were lower (p<0.001). When the outcomes in anterior and posterior regions were compared feldspathic/silica-based ceramic and zirconia crowns exhibited significantly lower survival rates in the posterior region (p<0.0001), the other crown types performed similarly. Densely sintered zirconia SCs were more frequently lost due to veneering ceramic fractures than metal-ceramic SCs (p<0.001), and had significantly more loss of retention (p<0.001). In total higher 5 year rates of framework fracture were reported for the all-ceramic SCs than for metal-ceramic SCs. CONCLUSIONS Survival rates of most types of all-ceramic SCs were similar to those reported for metal-ceramic SCs, both in anterior and posterior regions. Weaker feldspathic/silica-based ceramics should be limited to applications in the anterior region. Zirconia-based SCs should not be considered as primary option due to their high incidence of technical problems.

All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part II: Multiple-unit FDPs.

OBJECTIVE To assess the 5-year survival of metal-ceramic and all-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and to describe the incidence of biological, technical and esthetic complications. METHODS Medline (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) searches (2006-2013) were performed for clinical studies focusing on tooth-supported FDPs with a mean follow-up of at least 3 years. This was complemented by an additional hand search and the inclusion of 10 studies from a previous systematic review [1]. Survival and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year proportions. RESULTS Forty studies reporting on 1796 metal-ceramic and 1110 all-ceramic FDPs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of the included studies indicated an estimated 5-year survival rate of metal-ceramic FDPs of 94.4% (95% CI: 91.2-96.5%). The estimated survival rate of reinforced glass ceramic FDPs was 89.1% (95% CI: 80.4-94.0%), the survival rate of glass-infiltrated alumina FDPs was 86.2% (95% CI: 69.3-94.2%) and the survival rate of densely sintered zirconia FDPs was 90.4% (95% CI: 84.8-94.0%) in 5 years of function. Even though the survival rate of all-ceramic FDPs was lower than for metal-ceramic FDPs, the differences did not reach statistical significance except for the glass-infiltrated alumina FDPs (p=0.05). A significantly higher incidence of caries in abutment teeth was observed for densely sintered zirconia FDPs compared to metal-ceramic FDPs. Significantly more framework fractures were reported for reinforced glass ceramic FDPs (8.0%) and glass-infiltrated alumina FDPs (12.9%) compared to metal-ceramic FDPs (0.6%) and densely sintered zirconia FDPs (1.9%) in 5 years in function. However, the incidence of ceramic fractures and loss of retention was significantly (p=0.018 and 0.028 respectively) higher for densely sintered zirconia FDPs compared to all other types of FDPs. CONCLUSIONS Survival rates of all types of all-ceramic FDPs were lower than those reported for metal-ceramic FDPs. The incidence of framework fractures was significantly higher for reinforced glass ceramic FDPs and infiltrated glass ceramic FDPs, and the incidence for ceramic fractures and loss of retention was significantly higher for densely sintered zirconia FDPs compared to metal-ceramic FDPs.

Five-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing zirconia and titanium abutments supporting single-implant crowns in canine and posterior regions

OBJECTIVES: To test the survival rates, and the technical and biological complication rates of customized zirconia and titanium abutments 5 years after crown insertion. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients with 40 single implants in maxillary and mandibular canine and posterior regions were included. The implant sites were randomly assigned to zirconia abutments supporting all-ceramic crowns or titanium abutments supporting metal-ceramic crowns. Clinical examinations were performed at baseline, and at 6, 12, 36 and 60 months of follow-up. The abutments and reconstructions were examined for technical and/or biological complications. Probing pocket depth (PPD), plaque control record (PCR) and Bleeding on Probing (BOP) were assessed at abutments (test) and analogous contralateral teeth (control). Radiographs of the implants revealed the bone level (BL) on mesial (mBL) and distal sides (dBL). Data were statistically analyzed with nonparametric mixed models provided by Brunner and Langer and STATA (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Eighteen patients with 18 zirconia and 10 titanium abutments were available at a mean follow-up of 5.6 years (range 4.5-6.3 years). No abutment fracture or loss of a reconstruction occurred. Hence, the survival rate was 100% for both. Survival of implants supporting zirconia abutments was 88.9% and 90% for implants supporting titanium abutments. Chipping of the veneering ceramic occurred at three metal-ceramic crowns supported by titanium abutments. No significant differences were found at the zirconia and titanium abutments for PPD (meanPPD(ZrO2) 3.3 ± 0.6 mm, mPPD(T) (i) 3.6 ± 1.1 mm), PCR (mPCR(Z) (rO) (2) 0.1 ± 0.3, mPCR(T) (i) 0.3 ± 0.2) and BOP (mBOP(Z) (rO) (2) 0.5 ± 0.3, mBOP(T) (i) 0.6 ± 0.3). Moreover, the BL was similar at implants supporting zirconia and titanium abutments (mBL(Z) (rO) (2) 1.8 ± 0.5, dBL(Z) (rO) (2) 2.0 ± 0.8; mBL(T) (i) 2.0 ± 0.8, dBL(T) (i) 1.9 ± 0.8). CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistically or clinically relevant differences between the 5-year survival rates, and the technical and biological complication rates of zirconia and titanium abutments in posterior regions.

In vitro fracture strength and thermal shock resistance of metal-ceramic crowns with cast and machined AuTi frameworks

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: AuTi alloys with 1.6% to 1.7% (wt%) Ti provide sufficient bond strength to veneering ceramics, but the strength of entire metal-ceramic restorations fabricated from these alloys is not known. However, this information is important to assess the clinical performance of such materials. PURPOSE: This in vitro study evaluated the fracture strength and thermal shock resistance of metal-ceramic crowns with AuTi frameworks produced by milling or casting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Frameworks of the alloy Au-1.7Ti-0.1Ir (wt%) (Esteticor Vision) were produced by milling or casting (test groups). A high-gold alloy (Esteticor Special) was used as the control. The frameworks were veneered with ceramic (VMK 95). Specimens (n=7) were loaded until fracture. Loads at failure (N) were recorded and the mean values statistically evaluated using 1-way analysis of variance and a post hoc Dunnett test (alpha=.05). To assess the crazing resistance of the veneering ceramic, 6 additional crowns of each group were subjected to a thermal shock test. Fractured surfaces were documented by scanning electron microscopy. Coefficients of thermal expansion of the materials used were measured (n=2) to assess the thermal compatibility between alloys and ceramic. RESULTS: The mean fracture strength of the crowns with machined AuTi frameworks (1294 +/- 236 N) was significantly lower (P=.012) than that of the cast AuTi frameworks (1680 +/- 150 N), but statistically not different than the high-gold alloy (1449 +/- 159 N). Bonding failure to the AuTi alloy predominantly occurred at the alloy-oxide interface. For the high-gold alloy, more ceramic residues were observed. In the thermal shock test, crowns with milled AuTi frameworks showed significantly higher thermal shock resistance compared to the other groups. The coefficients of thermal expansion (Esteticor Vision cast: 14.5 microm/m.K; Esteticor Vision milled: 14.3 microm/m.K; Esteticor Special cast: 13.7 microm/m.K) did not correlate with the results of the thermal shock test. CONCLUSION: The in vitro fracture strength of crowns with milled AuTi frameworks is lower than that obtained with cast AuTi frameworks, but comparable to those crowns produced with a high-gold alloy.

[Zirconia and removable partial dentures]

The present paper deals with the double crown technique in removable prosthodontics. New ceramic materials like zirconia are increasingly used in combination with CAD/CAM technologies for framework fabrication of fixed prosthesis, tooth- or implant-supported. However, zirconia is also a newly accepted material in removable prosthodontics. It replaces gold alloys for the fabrication of primary telescopic crowns. The Galvanoforming technology is preferably used to fabricate the secondary crowns. The combination of both techniques and materials results in a prosthetic reconstruction of high quality, optimum fit and good biocompatibility.