Chairside Fabrication of an All-Ceramic Partial Crown Using a Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate Ceramic

Rinke, Sven; Pabel, Anne-Kathrin; Rödiger, Matthias; Ziebolz, Dirk

doi:10.1155/2016/1354186

Cited by 30 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These new glass-ceramics were designed to contain lithium silicate as the main crystalline phase in a vitreous matrix reinforced with zirconium dioxide crystals (~10%). 48 When this material goes through the crystallization process, the nucleated lithium silicate crystals achieve a mean size (0.5 to 1 μm) that is up to 6 times smaller than that observed for lithium disilicate crystals present in lithium disilicate glass-ceramics. 49 The formation of a smaller and finer crystalline phase occurs due to the presence of zirconia particles in the material, which acts as an additive influencing the crystallization by hindering crystal growth.…”

Section: New Glass-ceramicsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…52 These novel zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate glass-ceramics have good mechanical properties associated with an excellent esthetic quality, thus being a valid alterative to lithium disilicate materials for prosthetic rehabilitations with high aesthetic demand. The main advantage of these materials is their timesaving ability for the production of dental restorations, since they are faster to be milled in CAD-CAM machines than lithium disilicate glass-ceramics 53 and are already offered in their fully crystallized state (CELTRA Duo, Dentisply-Sirona, Bensheim, Germany) no furnace need) or need a very short crystallization cycle (Suprinity, Bad Sachingen, Germany). A particular advantage of the lithium silicate ceramic over the lithium disilicate version is the superior polishability due to the smaller crystal sizes in the microstructure.…”

Section: New Glass-ceramicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dental ceramics: a review of new materials and processing methods

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evolution of computerized systems for the production of dental restorations associated to the development of novel microstructures for ceramic materials has caused an important change in the clinical workflow for dentists and technicians, as well as in the treatment options offered to patients. New microstructures have also been developed by the industry in order to offer ceramic and composite materials with optimized properties, i.e., good mechanical properties, appropriate wear behavior and acceptable aesthetic characteristics. The objective of this literature review is to discuss the main advantages and disadvantages of the new ceramic systems and processing methods. The manuscript is divided in five parts: I) monolithic zirconia restorations; II) multilayered dental prostheses; III) new glass-ceramics; IV) polymer infiltrated ceramics; and V) novel processing technologies. Dental ceramics and processing technologies have evolved significantly in the past ten years, with most of the evolution being related to new microstructures and CAD-CAM methods. In addition, a trend towards the use of monolithic restorations has changed the way clinicians produce all-ceramic dental prostheses, since the more aesthetic multilayered restorations unfortunately are more prone to chipping or delamination. Composite materials processed via CAD-CAM have become an interesting option, as they have intermediate properties between ceramics and polymers and are more easily milled and polished.

show abstract

Section: New Glass-ceramicsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: New Glass-ceramicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental ceramics: a review of new materials and processing methods

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The 0.4 mm thickness of the material followed the manufacturer's recommendation of minimum thickness for both Suprinity and E-max that can produce good esthetics on teeth with minimal discoloration. It is also considered the thickness of choice for veneers with an acceptable color of the core [5,27,28]. A 0.5 mm thick material is indicated in cases with minimum veneer preparation and acceptable color of the underlying structure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of thickness and background on the color changes of CAD/CAM dental ceramic restorative materials

Alfouzan

Al-Otaibi

Labban

et al. 2020

Mater. Res. Express

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to compare the effect of thickness and background on the color changes of CAD/ CAM materials (zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (Suprinity), lithium disilicate (IPS E-max CAD), and hybrid ceramic (Enamic)). Twelve specimens for each thickness (0.4 mm, 0.5 mm, 1 mm, 1.5 mm, and 2 mm) were obtained by sectioning three CAD/CAM materials. A spectrophotometer was used to measure the color change of the specimens against different backgrounds (A2 enamel, A4 dentin, gray, and metal) using the CIELab color space system. Analysis of variance, sample t-test, and posthoc multiple comparison tests were used to evaluate and compare the color changes for different material types, thicknesses, and background colors, with a significance level of P0.05. The result demonstrated that material type, the thickness of the material, and the color of the background had a significant effect on ΔE (P=0.000). Regardless of the material thickness, Suprinity had the highest mean ΔE values (5.4±1.9), and E-max had the lowest mean ΔE values (1.1±0.6). At 2 mm thickness, Enamic presented the lowest ΔE values (0.5±0.5) against the A2 background. The 0.5 and 1 mm specimens corresponded to the highest ΔE values, whereas the 1.5 and 2 mm thickness specimens predominantly gave the lowest ΔE values. All the independent factors, including the type and thickness of the material, and color of the background, contributed significantly to ΔE of the tested materials (P0.05). The study confirms the high masking ability of the lithium disilicate (Emax) material. In clinical situations where the color of the core needs to be masked, it is recommended to use lithium disilicate (E-max).

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, data regarding the clinical performance of all‐ceramic restorations remain sparse and are limited to case reports or clinical studies with limited observational periods of less than 2 years …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[17][18][19] Nevertheless, data regarding the clinical performance of allceramic restorations remain sparse and are limited to case reports or clinical studies with limited observational periods of less than 2 years. [20][21][22] Based on the findings of the available clinical studies, the second most common reason for the failure of a CCPC is the debonding of the restorations. Numerous clinical studies have demonstrated a significant effect of the cementation technique on the survival and success rates of CCPCs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical evaluation of chairside‐fabricated partial crowns composed of zirconia‐reinforced lithium silicate ceramics: 3‐year results of a prospective practice‐based study

Rinke¹,

Pfitzenreuter

Leha

et al. 2019

J Esthet Restor Dent

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Prospective practice‐based clinical evaluation of chairside fabricated monolithic partial crowns composed of zirconia‐containing lithium silicate (ZLS) ceramic material. Materials and Methods Between October 2013 and September 2014, 71 patients were restored with 92 partial crowns on vital or sufficiently endodontically treated teeth. The monolithic restorations were fabricated chairside (Cerec SW 4.2/Cerec MC XL) from a glaze‐fired ZLS ceramic material (Celtra Duo, Dentsply Sirona, Bensheim, Germany). Adhesive cementation was performed using the total‐etch technique with one of two dual‐curing composite materials. Modified United States Public Health Service parameters were evaluated annually; moreover, the parameters “time‐dependent survival” (in situ criterion) and “success rates” (event‐free restorations) were evaluated according to Kaplan‐Meier analysis. Results Sixty‐nine patients with 17 premolar and 71 molar partial crowns attended annual follow‐up examinations (observational period: 36.0 ± 5.7 months). Two complete failures were recorded and were caused by a tooth fracture (at 30 months) and a restoration fracture (at 38 months), (3‐year survival rate: 99%; 95% confidence interval (CI 95%): [0.97;1]). One clinical intervention was necessary (endodontic treatment) to maintain function (3‐year success rate: 98%; (CI95%: [0.95:1]). Conclusions Chairside‐fabricated ZLS partial crowns show a good initial clinical performance. However, to further evaluate this new material, clinical data from studies with longer observational periods are required. Clinical Significance Based on this mid‐term evaluation, ZLS ceramics appear to be a promising alternative material for the chairside fabrication of adhesively luted monolithic posterior restorations with a low risk of material‐related complications.

show abstract

Chairside Fabrication of an All-Ceramic Partial Crown Using a Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate Ceramic

Cited by 30 publications

References 11 publications

Dental ceramics: a review of new materials and processing methods

Dental ceramics: a review of new materials and processing methods

Influence of thickness and background on the color changes of CAD/CAM dental ceramic restorative materials

Clinical evaluation of chairside‐fabricated partial crowns composed of zirconia‐reinforced lithium silicate ceramics: 3‐year results of a prospective practice‐based study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About