CAD/CAM or conventional ceramic materials restorations longevity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Rodrigues, Stéfani Becker; Franken, P.E.C.; Celeste, Roger Keller; Leitune, Vicente Castelo Branco; Collares, Fabrício Mezzomo

doi:10.1016/j.jpor.2018.11.006

Cited by 27 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Their results are in agreement with the present systematic review related to the heterogeneity caused by the variety of the materials assessed [47]. The review of Rodrigues et al included studies on CAD/CAM materials for single crown, multiple-unit or partial ceramic crown with a 24 to 84-month follow-up based on the longevity and failures rates, suggesting that the longevity of CAD/CAM restorations is lower compared to the conventionally fabricated restorations [48], as they presented a 1.84 higher failure rate during a follow-up period of 24 to 84 months. However, the results of the present systematic review showed that when partial and full crown reconstructions made of hybrid polymer and ceramic CAD/CAM materials were analyzed, the overall survival rate was 99% (0.95-1.00) up to 24 months and dropped to 95% (0.87-0.98) at ≥36 months.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…The success rates, assessed by biologic, technical and esthetical aspects showed a decrease in success from 24 to 36 months. Compared to previous reviews the present data were higher compared to ceramic, zirconia and CAD/CAM single crown reconstructions reported in previous studies [16,48,56].…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 82%

“…However, for full crowns, literature is still supporting the porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns as the gold standard, with results of 5-year survival rates exceeding 95% [16,50]. Furthermore, in terms of longevity, the literature showed that full and partial CAD/CAM ceramic crowns have lower long-term survival compared to the ones produced through conventional techniques [48]. Analyzing the results of other studies of full ceramic crowns, the literature provided data on leucite or disilicate reinforced ceramics survival rates of 96.6% and 95%, respectively [16], these results are comparable to those found in this review.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Clinical Performance of Partial and Full-Coverage Fixed Dental Restorations Fabricated from Hybrid Polymer and Ceramic CAD/CAM Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Husain

Özcan

Molinero‐Mourelle

et al. 2020

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical performance of tooth-borne partial and full-coverage fixed dental prosthesis fabricated using hybrid polymer and ceramic CAD/CAM materials regarding their biologic, technical and esthetical outcomes. PICOS search strategy was applied using MEDLINE and were searched for RCTs and case control studies by two reviewers using MeSH Terms. Bias risk was evaluated using the Cochrane collaboration tool and Newcastle–Ottawa assessment scale. A meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the mean long-term survival difference of both materials at two different periods (≤24, ≥36 months(m)). Mean differences in biologic, technical and esthetical complications of partial vs. full crown reconstructions were analyzed using software package R (p < 0.05). 28 studies included in the systematic review and 25 studies in the meta-analysis. The overall survival rate was 99% (0.95–1.00, ≤24 m) and dropped to 95% (0.87–0.98, ≥36 m), while the overall success ratio was 88% (0.54–0.98; ≤24 m) vs. 77% (0.62–0.88; ≥36 m). No significance, neither for the follow-up time points, nor for biologic, technical and esthetical (88% vs. 77%; 90% vs. 74%; 96% vs. 95%) outcomes was overserved. A significance was found for the technical/clinical performance between full 93% (0.88–0.96) and partial 64% (0.34–0.86) crowns. The biologic success rate of partial crowns with 69% (0.42–0.87) was lower, but not significant compared to 91% (0.79–0.97) of full crowns. The esthetical success rate of partial crowns with 90% (0.65–0.98) was lower, but not significant compared to 99% (0.92–1.00) of full crowns.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 82%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical Performance of Partial and Full-Coverage Fixed Dental Restorations Fabricated from Hybrid Polymer and Ceramic CAD/CAM Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Husain

Özcan

Molinero‐Mourelle

et al. 2020

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As far as quality is concerned, the latter did not show statistically significant parameters. Digital equipment is starting to be used in the medical field, and above all in the dental field, it is now possible to have a completely digital workflow [4,8,[39][40][41].…”

Section: Summary Of Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

3D Digital Impression Systems Compared with Traditional Techniques in Dentistry: A Recent Data Systematic Review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The advent of new technologies in the field of medicine and dentistry is giving improvements that lead the clinicians to have materials and procedures able to improve patients’ quality of life. In dentistry, the last digital techniques offer a fully digital computerized workflow that does not include the standard multiple traditional phases. The purpose of this study is to evaluate all clinical trials and clinical randomized trials related to the digital or dental impression technique in prosthetic dentistry trying to give the readers global information about advantages and disadvantages of each procedure. Data collection was conducted in the main scientific search engines, including articles from the last 10 years, in order to obtain results that do not concern obsolete impression techniques. Elsevier, Pubmed and Embase have been screened as sources for performing the research. The results data demonstrated how the working time appears to be improved with digital workflow, but without a significant result (P = 0.72596). The papers have been selected following the Population Intervention Comparison Outcome (PICO) question, which is related to the progress on dental impression materials and technique. The comparison between dentists or practitioners with respect to classic impression procedures, and students open to new device and digital techniques seem to be the key factor on the final impression technique choice. Surely, digital techniques will end up supplanting the analogical ones altogether, improving the quality of oral rehabilitations, the economics of dental practice and also the perception by our patients.

show abstract

“…Another recent development has been the introduction of monolithic materials based on polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) doped with graphene nanoparticles that have shown promising properties and perhaps represent the future of restorative dentistry, although to date their properties have not been evidenced by in vitro or in vivo trials [15]. Monolithics materials are made with CAD/CAM techniques that require only a few steps and less time for the fabrication of a restoration compared to old traditional methods, but the literature shows survival rates slightly lower than the restorations with a metal/zirconia core and porcelain veneer [16,17]. CAD/CAM systems also have some disadvantages.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Metal-Free Monolithic Crowns the Present of Prosthesis? Study of Mechanical Behaviour

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To analyze in vitro the mechanical behavior of five types of complete coverage crowns fabricated from different materials. Materials and methods: Seventy-five full coverage crowns were divided into five groups according to material: Group I, metal core with feldspathic ceramic covering (MC- control group); Group II, zirconia core with feldspathic ceramic covering (CZ); Group III, tetragonal monolithic zirconia (TMZ); Group IV, cubic monolithic zirconia (CMZ); Group V, high molecular weight polymethyl methacrylate (PMMAG) doped with graphene nanoparticles. All crowns underwent in vitro fatiguing by dynamic loading in wet conditions to simulate the masticatory forces to which prosthodontic materials are subject in the oral medium. Lastly, fracture resistance was evaluated by static compression testing. Results: The fracture resistance values obtained were as follows: Group MC, 2443.6 ± 238.6 N; Group CZ, 2095.4 ± 329.2 N; Group TMZ, 2494.6 ± 236.6 N; Group CMZ, 1523.6 ± 325.2 N; and Group PMMAG, 1708.9 ± 386.6 N. Group MC presented higher strength with statistically significant differences in comparison with Groups CZ (P = 0.002), CMZ (P < 0.001), and PMMAG (P < 0.001). Weibull distribution showed less probability of cumulative biomechanical failure in Groups MC and TMZ. Conclusions: Metal-ceramic and tetragonal zirconia showed high fracture resistance, while cubic zirconia and PMMA doped with graphene nanoparticles obtained lower values.

show abstract

CAD/CAM or conventional ceramic materials restorations longevity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 27 publications

References 34 publications

Clinical Performance of Partial and Full-Coverage Fixed Dental Restorations Fabricated from Hybrid Polymer and Ceramic CAD/CAM Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Clinical Performance of Partial and Full-Coverage Fixed Dental Restorations Fabricated from Hybrid Polymer and Ceramic CAD/CAM Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

3D Digital Impression Systems Compared with Traditional Techniques in Dentistry: A Recent Data Systematic Review

Are Metal-Free Monolithic Crowns the Present of Prosthesis? Study of Mechanical Behaviour

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About