Adherence of Streptococcus mutans on lithium disilicate porcelain specimens

Vo, Diane; Arola, D.; Romberg, Elaine; Driscoll, Carl F.; Jabra‐Rizk, Mary Ann; Masri, Radi

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.06.017

Cited by 26 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The location of crown margins did not appear to have significant effect on the condition of adjacent gingival tissues. This may be explained, at least in part, by the fact that bacterial adhesion to polished LDGC crown surfaces is quite low …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…CAD, computer-aided design; CAM, computer-aided manufacturing; LDGC, lithium disilicate glass-ceramic explained, at least in part, by the fact that bacterial adhesion to polished LDGC crown surfaces is quite low. 25 The tooth vitality status and cement type did not affect the survival rate of crowns. Although previous studies reported the development of endodontic complications within a period of 2 years following crown placement, 5,6 we did not observe any loss of vitality for the seven crowns placed on vital teeth over the 4-year observation period.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical performance of chairside monolithic lithium disilicate glass‐ceramic CAD‐CAM crowns

Aziz

El‐Mowafy

Tenenbaum

et al. 2019

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To evaluate the clinical performance and the effect of various patient and provider‐related factors on the longevity of chairside monolithic posterior lithium disilicate glass‐ceramic (LDGC) computer‐aided design (CAD)‐computer‐aided manufacturing (CAM) crowns provided by predoctoral students. Materials and Methods A sample of posterior LDGC CAD‐CAM crowns was evaluated. Crown preparations were milled chairside using the CEREC Omnicam system and cemented with Rely‐X Unicem or Calibra Universal resin cements. Clinical assessment of the crowns and supporting periodontal structures was performed using the modified California Dental Association (CDA) criteria. Intraoral photographs as well as radiographs were taken for further assessment by two evaluators. Kaplan‐Meier survival analysis was performed. Results A total of 40 crowns were inserted in 32 patients and evaluated for 4 years. Three complications were observed (two‐technical and one‐biological). No chipping or fracture of crowns was observed. No significant association was found between age, sex, periodontal condition, tooth type, tooth vitality, cement type, and longevity. The 4‐year cumulative survival and success rates were 95.0 and 92.3%, respectively. Conclusion Chairside LDGC CAD‐CAM crowns exhibited a high survival rate after 4 years in function and were shown to be a viable and reliable treatment option for posterior teeth. Clinical significance The high survival rate of chairside CAD‐CAM crowns observed in this study suggests the likelihood of predictable performance in the predoctoral setup.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Clinical performance of chairside monolithic lithium disilicate glass‐ceramic CAD‐CAM crowns

Aziz

El‐Mowafy

Tenenbaum

et al. 2019

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, it could be shown that intraoral polishing might not be capable to recreate the same smooth surface finish as received from the dental laboratory after final firing (Vrochari et al, 2015). Irrespective of the exact etiology (reasons might be multifactorial), surface roughness is considered to be strongly related with bacterial adherence (Vo et al, 2015) and fracture resistance (Albakry, Guazzato, & Vincent Swain, 2004;Rashid, 2014). It was already shown that surface roughening of veneering ceramics can be considered as a precursor for upcoming fracture (Spies, Witkowski, Vach, & Kohal, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

All‐ceramic single crowns supported by zirconia implants: 5‐year results of a prospective multicenter study

Spies

Balmer

Jung

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To assess survival/success rates and patient‐reported outcome of zirconia‐based posterior single crowns (SCs) supported by zirconia implants in a prospective two‐center study after five years of observation. Material and methods Forty‐five patients were restored with 45 zirconia implant‐supported posterior SCs composed of zirconia frameworks hand‐layered with a leucite‐reinforced feldspathic ceramic. Survival rates of SCs were assessed and technical success was evaluated according to modified United States Public Health Care (USPHS) criteria. Furthermore, patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed by applying visual analog scales (VAS). Wilcoxon matched‐pairs signed‐rank test, mixed‐effects ordered logistic regression, and linear mixed models were used to evaluate time effects on response variables. Results Forty patients were available after a mean observation period of 61.0 ± 1.4 months. One SC had to be replaced, resulting in a Kaplan–Meier (KM) survival estimate for the SCs of 97.5 ± 2.47%. Since nine reconstructions showed at least in one category a major deviation from the ideal (five major chippings, four with increased occlusal roughness, one significant crevice, and one pronounced over‐contouring), the KM success estimate was 79.3 ± 5.8%. Incidence of chipping (n = 19) and occlusal roughness (n = 35) was frequent (p < 0.001). All PROMs at prosthetic delivery except for speech (p = 0.139) showed significantly improved VAS scores (81%–94%; p < 0.001) compared to pre‐treatment evaluations. Thereafter, no decrease in satisfaction could be observed until the 5‐year follow‐up (93%–97%). Conclusion Veneered zirconia‐based SCs supported by zirconia implants showed high survival rates and highly satisfied patients' needs. However, significant incidence of technical complications is compromising the clinical long‐term outcome for this indication.

show abstract

“…35 Concerning the last-mentioned aspect, it could be shown that intraoral polishing steps after grinding (e.g., adjustments of the occlusion) might not be capable to recreate the same smooth surface finish as received from the dental laboratory after a final glaze firing. 36 Irrespective of the exact etiology (reasons might be multifactorial), surface roughness is considered to be strongly related with bacterial adherence 37 and fracture resistance. 38,39 Significance (Linear mixed models) was calculated for changes between P and D. Moreover, a trend over time from D to 5 y (D/1 y/3 y/5 y in relation to the baseline value P) has been calculated to verify a lasting effect.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

CAD/CAM‐fabricated ceramic implant‐supported single crowns made from lithium disilicate: Final results of a 5‐year prospective cohort study

Spies

Pieralli

Vach

et al. 2017

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Adherence of Streptococcus mutans on lithium disilicate porcelain specimens

Cited by 26 publications

References 23 publications

Clinical performance of chairside monolithic lithium disilicate glass‐ceramic CAD‐CAM crowns

Clinical performance of chairside monolithic lithium disilicate glass‐ceramic CAD‐CAM crowns

All‐ceramic single crowns supported by zirconia implants: 5‐year results of a prospective multicenter study

CAD/CAM‐fabricated ceramic implant‐supported single crowns made from lithium disilicate: Final results of a 5‐year prospective cohort study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About