Switch to Dark theme

References

Win LC, Sands P, Bonsor SJ, Burke FJT. Ceramics in dentistry: which material is appropriate for the anterior or posterior dentition? Part 1: materials science. Dent Update. 2021; 48:680-688
Heintze SD, Rousson V, Mahn E. Bond strength tests of dental adhesive systems and their correlation with clinical results-a meta-analysis. Dent Mater. 2015; 31:423-434
Bayne SC. Dental restorations for oral rehabilitation – testing of laboratory properties versus clinical performance for clinical decision making. J Oral Rehabil. 2007; 34:921-923
Sailer I, Balmer M, Husler J 10-year randomized trial of zirconia-ceramic and metal–ceramic fixed dental prostheses. J Dent. 2018; 76:32-39
Monaco C, Llukacej A, Baldissara P Zirconia-based versus metal-based single crowns veneered with overpressing ceramic for posterior endodontically treated teeth: 5-year results of a randomized controlled clinical study. J Dent. 2017; 65:56-63
Nejatidanesh F, Abbassi M, Savabi G Five year clinical outcomes of metal–ceramic and zirconia-based implant-supported dental prostheses: a retrospective study. J Dent. 2020; 100
Pjeturrson BE, Sailer I, Makarov NA All-ceramic or metal–ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FPDs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part II: multiple-unit FPDs. Dent Mater. 2015; 31:624-639
Zarone F, Di Mauro MI, Spagnuolo G Fourteen-year evaluation of posterior zirconia-based three-unit fixed dental prostheses. A prospective clinical study of all ceramic prostheses. J Dent. 2020; 101
Chaar MS, Kern M. Five-year clinical outcome of posterior zirconia ceramic inlay-retained FPDs with a modified design. J Dent. 2015; 43:1411-1415
Naenni N, Bindl A, Sax C A randomized controlled clinical trial of 3-unit posterior zirconia-ceramic fixed dental prostheses with layered or pressed veneering ceramics: 3-year results. J Dent. 2015; 1365-1370
Kern M, Passia N, Sasse M, Yazigi C. Ten-year outcome of zirconia ceramic cantilever resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses and the influence of the reasons for missing incisors. J Dent. 2017; 65:51-55
Ioannidis A, Bindl A. Clinical prospective evaluation of zirconia-based three-unit posterior fixed dental prostheses: up to ten year results. J Dent. 2016; 47:80-85
Tanner J, Niemi H, Ojala E Zirconia single crowns and multiple-unit FPDs – an up to 8-year retrospective study. J Dent. 2018; 79:96-101
Hansen TL, Schriwer C, Olio M, Gjengedal H. Monolithic zirconia crowns in the aesthetic zone in heavy grinders with severe tooth wear – an observational case-series. J Dent. 2018; 72:14-20
Esquivel-Upshaw JF, Kim MJ, Hsu SM Randomised clinical study of wear of enamel antagonists against polished monolithic zirconia crowns. J Dent. 2018; 68:19-27
Jum'ah AA, Brunton PA, Li KC, Waddell JN. Simulated clinical adjustment and intro-oral polishing of two translucent monolithic zirconia dental ceramics: an in vitro investigation of surface roughness. J Dent. 2020; 101
Becker M, Chaar MS, Garling A, Kern M. Fifteen-year outcome of posterior all-ceramic inlay-retained fixed partial prostheses. J Dent. 2019; 89
Garling A, Sasse M, Becker MEE, Kern M. Fifteen-year outcome of three-unit fixed dental prostheses made from monolithic lithium disilicate ceramic. J Dent. 2019; 89
Malament KA, Natto ZS, Thompson V Ten-year survival of pressed, acid-etched e.max lithium disilicate monolithic and bilayered complete-coverage restorations: performance and outcomes as a function of tooth position and age. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121:782-790
Pieger S, Salman A, Bidra AS. Clinical outcomes of lithium disilicate single crowns and partial fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112:22-30
Coe JM. Critical summaries. J Am Dent Assoc. 2017; 148:345-346
Brandt S, Winter A, Lauer H-C IPS e.max for all-ceramic restorations: clinical survival and success rates of full-coverage crowns and fixed partial dentures. Materials (Basel). 2019; 12
Teichmann M, Gockler F, Weber V Ten-year survival and complication rates of lithium disilicate (Empress 2) tooth-supported crowns, implant-supported crowns and fixed partial dentures. J Dent. 2017; 56:65-77
Heintze SD, Zimmerli B. Relevance of in vitro tests of adhesive and composite dental materials. Part 1: Approval requirements and standardized testing of composite materials according to ISO specifications. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2011; 121:810-816
Zarone F, DiMauro MI, Ausiello P Current status on lithium disilicate and zirconia: a narrative review. BMC Oral Health. 2019; 19

Ceramics in dentistry: which material is appropriate for the anterior or posterior dentition? Part 2: recent clinical research

From Volume 48, Issue 8, September 2021 | Pages 690-696

Authors

Loo Chien Win

BDS (AIMST), MSc Restorative (Birmingham)

MSc Restorative (Birmingham), Quay Dental Penang, Penang Island, Malaysia

Articles by Loo Chien Win

Email Loo Chien Win

Peter Sands

MSc, BDS, LDS, MCGD

Didcot, Oxfordshire

Articles by Peter Sands

Stephen J Bonsor

BDS(Hons) MSc FHEA FDS RCPS(Glasg) FDFTEd FCGDent GDP

The Dental Practice, 21 Rubislaw Terrace, Aberdeen; Hon Senior Clinical Lecturer, Institute of Dentistry, University of Aberdeen; Online Tutor/Clinical Lecturer, University of Edinburgh, UK.

Articles by Stephen J Bonsor

FJ Trevor Burke

DDS, MSc, MDS, MGDS, FDS (RCS Edin), FDS RCS (Eng), FCG Dent, FADM,

Articles by FJ Trevor Burke

Abstract

The large choice of ceramic materials for an indirect restoration has given clinicians a dilemma when choosing a suitable ceramic material for restorations in anterior or posterior teeth. Part 1 compared the physical properties and aesthetics of lithium disilicate and zirconia materials. This article explores recent clinical research on these materials.

CPD/Clinical Relevance: Awareness of which ceramic material performs optimally on anterior and posterior teeth is clinically important.

Article

The first article in this short series1 principally described the materials science aspect of two frequently-used ceramic materials: lithium disilicate and zirconia. It is the aim of Part 2 to review recent clinical research in these materials and discuss whether the results of this narrative review reflect those in Part 1 by the present authors,1 despite reservations having been expressed in the past2,3 that there is dubious correlation between laboratory-based research and clinical results. This article, therefore, will describe recently published research on zirconia and lithium disilicate crowns and bridges, and also will include publications comparing zirconia-based and metal–ceramic restorations, given that the latter has been a clinical ‘gold standard’ for recent decades when viable alternatives were few and far between.

The authors of the present article consider that this comparison is of great relevance, given that metal–ceramic crowns and bridges have been the ‘gold standard’ for tooth-coloured indirect restorations, despite the limitations apparent in Figure 1a. Table 1 presents the recent research that has been identified, while Figure 1 presents failed, unaesthetic metal–ceramic crowns at UL1 and UR1.

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Up to 2 free articles per month
  • New content available

Already have an account? Sign in here