Six-year clinical performance of lithium disilicate glass-ceramic CAD-CAM versus metal-ceramic crowns.

IF 2.7 3区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics Pub Date : 2023-02-01 DOI:10.4047/jap.2023.15.1.44

Ahmed Aziz, Omar El-Mowafy

{"title":"Six-year clinical performance of lithium disilicate glass-ceramic CAD-CAM versus metal-ceramic crowns.","authors":"Ahmed Aziz, Omar El-Mowafy","doi":"10.4047/jap.2023.15.1.44","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To assess the clinical performance of monolithic CAD-CAM lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (LDGC) crowns and metal-ceramic (MC) crowns provided by predoctoral students. This study also assessed the effects of patient and provider-related factors on their clinical performance as well as patient preference for these types of crowns.Materials and methods: Twenty-five patients who received 50 crowns (25 LDGC CAD-CAM and 25 MC) provided by predoctoral students were retrospectively examined. LDGC CAD-CAM crowns were milled in-house using the CEREC Bluecam system and cemented with either RelyX Unicem or Calibra Esthetic resin cements. MC crowns were cemented with RelyX Unicem cement. Clinical assessment of the crowns and the supporting periodontal structures were performed following the modified California Dental Association (CDA) criteria. Patients' preference was recorded using a visual analog scale (VAS). The results were statistically analyzed using log-rank test, Pearson Chi-squared test and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.Results: Twelve complications were observed in the MC crown group (9-esthetic, 2-technical and 1-biological). In comparison, 2 complications in the LDGC CAD-CAM crown group were observed (1-technical and 1-esthetic). The 6-year cumulative survival rates for MC crowns and LDGC CAD-CAM were 90.8% and 96%, respectively, whereas the success rates were 83.4% and 96%, respectively. Overall, patients preferred the esthetic outcomes of LDGC CAD-CAM crowns over MC crowns.Conclusion: The high survival and success rates, low number of complications, and the high level of patients' acceptance of monolithic LDGC CAD-CAM crowns lend them well as predictable and viable alternatives to the \"gold standard\" MC crowns.","PeriodicalId":51291,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/53/4f/jap-15-44.PMC9992700.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2023.15.1.44","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the clinical performance of monolithic CAD-CAM lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (LDGC) crowns and metal-ceramic (MC) crowns provided by predoctoral students. This study also assessed the effects of patient and provider-related factors on their clinical performance as well as patient preference for these types of crowns.

Materials and methods: Twenty-five patients who received 50 crowns (25 LDGC CAD-CAM and 25 MC) provided by predoctoral students were retrospectively examined. LDGC CAD-CAM crowns were milled in-house using the CEREC Bluecam system and cemented with either RelyX Unicem or Calibra Esthetic resin cements. MC crowns were cemented with RelyX Unicem cement. Clinical assessment of the crowns and the supporting periodontal structures were performed following the modified California Dental Association (CDA) criteria. Patients' preference was recorded using a visual analog scale (VAS). The results were statistically analyzed using log-rank test, Pearson Chi-squared test and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

Results: Twelve complications were observed in the MC crown group (9-esthetic, 2-technical and 1-biological). In comparison, 2 complications in the LDGC CAD-CAM crown group were observed (1-technical and 1-esthetic). The 6-year cumulative survival rates for MC crowns and LDGC CAD-CAM were 90.8% and 96%, respectively, whereas the success rates were 83.4% and 96%, respectively. Overall, patients preferred the esthetic outcomes of LDGC CAD-CAM crowns over MC crowns.

Conclusion: The high survival and success rates, low number of complications, and the high level of patients' acceptance of monolithic LDGC CAD-CAM crowns lend them well as predictable and viable alternatives to the "gold standard" MC crowns.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

二硅酸锂玻璃陶瓷CAD-CAM与金属陶瓷冠的六年临床表现。

目的:评价博士生提供的单片CAD-CAM二硅酸锂玻璃陶瓷(LDGC)冠和金属陶瓷(MC)冠的临床性能。本研究还评估了患者和提供者相关因素对临床表现的影响，以及患者对这些类型冠的偏好。材料和方法:对25例接受了博士预科生提供的50个冠(LDGC CAD-CAM 25个，MC 25个)的患者进行回顾性分析。LDGC CAD-CAM冠使用CEREC Bluecam系统进行内部研磨，并使用RelyX Unicem或Calibra aesthetic树脂胶结剂进行固井。使用RelyX Unicem水泥对MC冠进行胶结。临床评估的冠和支持牙周结构进行了修改后的加州牙科协会(CDA)标准。采用视觉模拟量表(VAS)记录患者的偏好。采用log-rank检验、Pearson Chi-squared检验和Kaplan-Meier生存分析对结果进行统计学分析。结果:MC冠组共出现12例并发症(美观9例，技术2例，生物1例)。相比之下，LDGC CAD-CAM冠组出现2例并发症(1例技术并发症，1例美学并发症)。MC冠和LDGC CAD-CAM的6年累积生存率分别为90.8%和96%，成功率分别为83.4%和96%。总体而言，与MC冠相比，患者更喜欢lcdgc CAD-CAM冠的美观效果。结论:单片LDGC CAD-CAM全冠成活率高，成功率高，并发症少，患者接受度高，可作为“金标准”MC全冠的替代方案。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-

CiteScore

4.70

自引率

3.80%

发文量

期刊介绍： This journal aims to convey scientific and clinical progress in the field of prosthodontics and its related areas to many dental communities concerned with esthetic and functional restorations, occlusion, implants, prostheses, and biomaterials related to prosthodontics. This journal publishes • Original research data of high scientific merit in the field of diagnosis, function, esthetics and stomatognathic physiology related to prosthodontic rehabilitation, physiology and mechanics of occlusion, mechanical and biologic aspects of prosthodontic materials including dental implants. • Review articles by experts on controversies and new developments in prosthodontics. • Case reports if they provide or document new fundamental knowledge.