Zirconia-based versus metal-based single crowns veneered with overpressing ceramic for restoration of posterior endodontically treated teeth: 5-year results of a randomized controlled clinical study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this 5-year randomized controlled trial was to compare the longevity and clinical behavior of single posterior crowns made with pressable ceramic on zirconia and on metal frameworks, and if failures occur, to delineate the contributing factors. METHODS: 72 patients, who needed the covering of at least a molar and/or premolar, were included in the study. All teeth were endodontically treated, with absence of periapical lesion or active periodontitis. Ninety single crowns were made with zirconia or metal framework and covered with pressable veneering ceramics. Two independent examiners assessed the survival of restorations at 6 months, 1-4 and 5 years after restoration placement including periapical radiographs, intraoral photographs, and USPHS modified criteria. The statistical analyses were performed with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: One core fracture occurred in Zircad/Zirpress crowns and one metal ceramic crown was lost for root fracture. Chipping fracture of the veneering ceramic was detected in 2 metal-ceramic crowns and in 3 zirconia-based crowns. The Estimate Cumulative Survival (ECS) and the Estimate Cumulative Success (ECSs) with standard deviation (SE) were respectively 97,73±2,19 and 92,64±4,14 for zirconia-based crowns whereas 97,44±2,39 and 91,11±4,27 for porcelain fused to metal crowns. CONCLUSIONS: The present randomized controlled trial shows that the survival of zirconia-based and metal-based single crowns is similar over a follow-up period of 5 years. No significant differences in esthetic, functional and biological outcomes were demonstrated between the two groups. The main failure mode was the chipping fracture of the veneering ceramic in both materials. Study number on ClinicalTrial.gov NCT02758457. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: According to the results of this clinical study, zirconia-based rehabilitations with overpressing veneering technique represent a valid alternative to metal-based for posterior single crown restorations.

Marginal Adaptation, Gap Width, and Fracture Strength of Teeth Restored With Different All-Ceramic Vs Metal Ceramic Crown Systems: An in Vitro Study.

This study evaluated marginal adaptation before and after thermomechanical (TCML) loading, gap width and fracture strength of all-ceramic single crowns, as compared to porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM). Thirty extracted premolars were prepared with a round shoulder of 1.0 mm depth. Specimens were restored with zirconia-ceramic (Group 1), lithium disilicate (Group 2) and metal-ceramic single crowns (Group 3). The replica of each sample was observed with a scanning electron microscope (SEM) to evaluate the crown-cement (c-c) and tooth-cement interface (t-c). After TCML, perfect margins decreased to 91.3% (c-c) and 93.9% (t-c) in Group 1, 94.6% (c-c) and 96.0% (t-c) in Group 2 and 73.5% (c-c) and 53.1% (t-c) in Group 3. The mean fracture strengths were 654.8 ± 98.1 N for Group 1, 551.3 ± 127 N for Group 2 and 501.43 ± 110.1 N for Group 3. All-ceramic systems could substitute for metal-ceramic crowns, but chipping of veneering ceramics, especially in zirconia-based crowns, should be investigated.

Translucency of zirconia copings made with different CAD/CAM systems.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Zirconia cores are reported to be less translucent than glass, lithium disilicate, or alumina cores. This could affect the esthetic appearance and the clinical choices made when using zirconia-based restorations. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the translucency of zirconia copings for single crowns fabricated using different CAD/CAM systems, using lithium disilicate glass ceramic as a control. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using impressions made from a stainless steel complete-crown master die, 9 stone cast replicas were fabricated, numbered, and distributed into 8 ceramic ZrO(2) CAD/CAM system groups (Lava Frame 0.3 and 0.5, IPS e.max ZirCAD, VITA YZ, Procera AllZircon, Digizon, DC Zircon, and Cercon Base) and to a lithium disilicate glass-ceramic control group (IPS e.max Press) using a simple computer-generated randomization method. From each die, the manufacturer's authorized milling centers supplied 5 copings per group without applying any dying technique to the ceramic base material. The copings were prepared to allow for a 40-mum cement layer and were of different thicknesses according to system specifications. Translucency was measured by the direct transmission method with a digital photoradiometer mounted in a dark chamber. The light source was a 150-W halogen lamp beam. Measurements were repeated 3 times for each specimen. Data obtained were analyzed using 1-way ANOVA and the Bonferroni multiple comparison test (alpha=.05). RESULTS: Among ZrO(2) copings, Lava (0.3 mm and 0.5 mm thick) showed the highest (P<.05) values of translucency measured as light flow units (3.572 + or - 018 x 10(3) lx and 3.181 + or - 0.13 x 10(3) lx, respectively). These values represent 71.7% and 63.9%, respectively, of the glass-ceramic control group (4.98 x 10(3) lx). CONCLUSIONS: All ZrO(2) copings demonstrated different levels of light transmission, with the 2 Lava specimens showing the highest values. Translucency of zirconia copings was significantly lower (P=.001) than that of the lithium disilicate glass-ceramic control.