Cargando…

Evaluation of the clinical success of four different types of lithium disilicate ceramic restorations: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: How long do lithium disilicate restorations last before they fail? The aim of this study was to assess the success rate of four different types of restorations made from lithium disilicate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 87,203 ceramic restorations, classified into four differ...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Abdulrahman, Sharo, Von See Mahm, Constantin, Talabani, Ranjdar, Abdulateef, Darwn
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8650461/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34876103
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01987-1
_version_ 1784611200822149120
author Abdulrahman, Sharo
Von See Mahm, Constantin
Talabani, Ranjdar
Abdulateef, Darwn
author_facet Abdulrahman, Sharo
Von See Mahm, Constantin
Talabani, Ranjdar
Abdulateef, Darwn
author_sort Abdulrahman, Sharo
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: How long do lithium disilicate restorations last before they fail? The aim of this study was to assess the success rate of four different types of restorations made from lithium disilicate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 87,203 ceramic restorations, classified into four different types (inlay or onlay, veneers (Vs), single crowns (SCs), and fixed partial dentures (FPDs)), were used. All were made of lithium disilicate (IPS e.Max CAD) with Cerec Inlab CAD/CAM system (Sirona Dental Systems, Bensheim, Germany). They were reported by dentists and entered in the database of the private B&R Dental Center between March 2015 and June 2020 and assessed retrospectively up to a period of 5 years based on the following parameters: failure rate and cause of failures (ceramic fracture, debonding, marginal adaptation, color match, endodontic intervention, periodontal disease, and secondary caries). Failure distribution according to gender, arch, and teeth type was also evaluated. The time-dependent time-to-failure/complication and their differences were calculated in months according to the Kaplan Meier and log-rank tests. The Chi-squared test (p 0.05) was used to assess the variations in causes of failure rates between different restorations. RESULTS: Kaplan Meier test showed overall cumulative survival probability of lithium disilicate restorations for up to years was 85.08%. Inlay/onlay and Vs ceramic restorations showed highest cumulative survival probability (99.4%, 98.6, respectively). FPDs had the least cumulative survival probability (52.9%) which was significantly (P < 0.00001) higher than for other ceramic restorations using the log-rank test. Moreover, overall time-dependent time-to-failure/complication occurred after 52.373 months according to Kaplan–Meier (CI: lower bound: 51.875 months; upper bound: 52.871 months). Ceramic fracture in both FPDs and SCs (27.6% and 26.6%, respectively) and debonding in Vs (12.7%) were significant as the main reasons for failure (P = 0.000). The failure rate was significantly higher for the maxillary arch than the mandibular arch (P = 0.021). Fracture and marginal discrepancy were more frequent in the molar region (77.5% and 14.75%, respectively) and significantly higher here than in the anterior and premolar regions (P = 0.000). CONCLUSION: The medium-term performance of lithium disilicate is ideal. Ceramic fracture was the most common cause of failure in SCs and FPDs. FPDs presented with the highest failure rate based on evaluation for up to 5 years.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8650461
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86504612021-12-07 Evaluation of the clinical success of four different types of lithium disilicate ceramic restorations: a retrospective study Abdulrahman, Sharo Von See Mahm, Constantin Talabani, Ranjdar Abdulateef, Darwn BMC Oral Health Research BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: How long do lithium disilicate restorations last before they fail? The aim of this study was to assess the success rate of four different types of restorations made from lithium disilicate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 87,203 ceramic restorations, classified into four different types (inlay or onlay, veneers (Vs), single crowns (SCs), and fixed partial dentures (FPDs)), were used. All were made of lithium disilicate (IPS e.Max CAD) with Cerec Inlab CAD/CAM system (Sirona Dental Systems, Bensheim, Germany). They were reported by dentists and entered in the database of the private B&R Dental Center between March 2015 and June 2020 and assessed retrospectively up to a period of 5 years based on the following parameters: failure rate and cause of failures (ceramic fracture, debonding, marginal adaptation, color match, endodontic intervention, periodontal disease, and secondary caries). Failure distribution according to gender, arch, and teeth type was also evaluated. The time-dependent time-to-failure/complication and their differences were calculated in months according to the Kaplan Meier and log-rank tests. The Chi-squared test (p 0.05) was used to assess the variations in causes of failure rates between different restorations. RESULTS: Kaplan Meier test showed overall cumulative survival probability of lithium disilicate restorations for up to years was 85.08%. Inlay/onlay and Vs ceramic restorations showed highest cumulative survival probability (99.4%, 98.6, respectively). FPDs had the least cumulative survival probability (52.9%) which was significantly (P < 0.00001) higher than for other ceramic restorations using the log-rank test. Moreover, overall time-dependent time-to-failure/complication occurred after 52.373 months according to Kaplan–Meier (CI: lower bound: 51.875 months; upper bound: 52.871 months). Ceramic fracture in both FPDs and SCs (27.6% and 26.6%, respectively) and debonding in Vs (12.7%) were significant as the main reasons for failure (P = 0.000). The failure rate was significantly higher for the maxillary arch than the mandibular arch (P = 0.021). Fracture and marginal discrepancy were more frequent in the molar region (77.5% and 14.75%, respectively) and significantly higher here than in the anterior and premolar regions (P = 0.000). CONCLUSION: The medium-term performance of lithium disilicate is ideal. Ceramic fracture was the most common cause of failure in SCs and FPDs. FPDs presented with the highest failure rate based on evaluation for up to 5 years. BioMed Central 2021-12-07 /pmc/articles/PMC8650461/ /pubmed/34876103 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01987-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Abdulrahman, Sharo
Von See Mahm, Constantin
Talabani, Ranjdar
Abdulateef, Darwn
Evaluation of the clinical success of four different types of lithium disilicate ceramic restorations: a retrospective study
title Evaluation of the clinical success of four different types of lithium disilicate ceramic restorations: a retrospective study
title_full Evaluation of the clinical success of four different types of lithium disilicate ceramic restorations: a retrospective study
title_fullStr Evaluation of the clinical success of four different types of lithium disilicate ceramic restorations: a retrospective study
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of the clinical success of four different types of lithium disilicate ceramic restorations: a retrospective study
title_short Evaluation of the clinical success of four different types of lithium disilicate ceramic restorations: a retrospective study
title_sort evaluation of the clinical success of four different types of lithium disilicate ceramic restorations: a retrospective study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8650461/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34876103
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01987-1
work_keys_str_mv AT abdulrahmansharo evaluationoftheclinicalsuccessoffourdifferenttypesoflithiumdisilicateceramicrestorationsaretrospectivestudy
AT vonseemahmconstantin evaluationoftheclinicalsuccessoffourdifferenttypesoflithiumdisilicateceramicrestorationsaretrospectivestudy
AT talabaniranjdar evaluationoftheclinicalsuccessoffourdifferenttypesoflithiumdisilicateceramicrestorationsaretrospectivestudy
AT abdulateefdarwn evaluationoftheclinicalsuccessoffourdifferenttypesoflithiumdisilicateceramicrestorationsaretrospectivestudy