Fracture rate of 188695 lithium disilicate and zirconia ceramic restorations after up to 7.5 years of clinical service: A dental laboratory survey.

Autor: Sulaiman TA; Assistant Professor, Division Director of Operative Dentistry and Biomaterials, Department of Restorative Sciences, University of North Carolina School of Dentistry, Chapel Hill, N.C. Electronic address: sulaiman@unc.edu., Abdulmajeed AA; Assistant Professor, Department of General Practice, School of Dentistry, Virginia Common Wealth University, Richmond, Va., Delgado A; Assistant Professor, Division Director of Operative Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Florida School of Dentistry, Gainesville, Fla., Donovan TE; Professor, Division of Operative Dentistry and Biomaterials, Department of Restorative Sciences, University of North Carolina School of Dentistry, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: The Journal of prosthetic dentistry [J Prosthet Dent] 2020 Jun; Vol. 123 (6), pp. 807-810. Date of Electronic Publication: 2019 Nov 05.
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.06.011
Abstrakt: Statement of Problem: The use of ceramic materials has increased significantly because of high esthetic demands, low costs, and ease of fabrication. Long-term, clinically based evidence is scarce, and laboratory studies have limited relevance in determining clinical durability.
Purpose: The purpose of this dental laboratory survey was to evaluate the fracture rate of layered and monolithic lithium disilicate and zirconia single crowns and fixed partial dentures after up to 7.5 years of clinical service.
Material and Methods: Two commercial dental laboratories with a database system that was able to track the number of remakes because of fracture only were identified. Lithium disilicate restorations (monolithic and layered) were categorized according to restoration type (single crown, fixed partial denture, veneer, and onlay). Zirconia restorations (monolithic and layered) were categorized according to type (single crown, fixed partial denture) and then into anterior or posterior restoration. Restoration remakes due to poor fit, shade, or marginal integrity were excluded from the evaluation. Data were analyzed, and statistical significance was evaluated with chi-square tests (α=.05).
Results: A total of 188 695 (51 751 lithium disilicate and 136 944 zirconia) restorations were included in the analysis, with an overall fracture rate of 1.35%. Lithium disilicate monolithic single crowns had a fracture rate of 0.96%, which was significantly lower than that of layered single crowns at 1.26% (P<.05). When the different types of lithium disilicate restorations were compared, fixed partial denture (monolithic and layered) fracture rates were significantly higher than those of single crowns (P<.001). Monolithic zirconia single crowns (0.54%) fractured at a lower rate than layered zirconia single crowns (2.83%) and monolithic fixed partial dentures (1.83%) (P<.001), while layered single crowns (2.83%) had a higher fracture rate than that of layered fixed partial dentures (1.93%) (P<.001). Monolithic anterior and posterior zirconia restorations fractured at a lower rate than layered anterior and posterior zirconia restorations (P<.05). Posterior monolithic zirconia restorations fractured at a lower rate than anterior restorations, while posterior layered zirconia restorations fractured at a higher rate than anterior zirconia restorations (P<.05).
Conclusions: Within the 7.5-year period, restorations fabricated with lithium disilicate and zirconia restorations had relatively low fracture rates. Monolithic restorations fractured at a lower rate than layered restorations.
(Copyright © 2019 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: