Fracture rate of monolithic zirconia restorations up to 5 years: A dental laboratory survey

Sulaiman, Taiseer A.; Abdulmajeed, Aous A.; Donovan, Terence E.; Cooper, Lyndon F.; Walter, Ricardo

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.01.033

Cited by 91 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, possibly some failed restorations may not have been counted, since the patient may have returned to another dentist or the dentist may have chosen another material to replace the restoration. 22 …”

Section: Monolithic Zirconia Restorationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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: Monolithic Zirconia Restorationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental ceramics: a review of new materials and processing methods

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Considering complete digital workflow on natural teeth including the digital manufacturing process, the fabrication of lithium disilicate monolithic crowns in centralized milling production displayed accurate results with various impression systems compared to conventional protocols (Ng et al, ; Sailer, Benic, Fehmer, Hammerle, & Muhlemann, ). The performance of monolithic yttria‐stabilized tetragonal zirconia (Zi) polycrystal crowns has been widely described in the literature in terms of resistance and fit for both natural teeth and implant restorations (Almeida e Silva et al, ; Freire, Gonzalo, Lopez‐Suarez, & Suarez, ; Hamza & Sherif, ; Kapos & Evans, ; Sulaiman, Abdulmajeed, Donovan, Cooper, & Walter, ; Syrek et al, ). However, esthetic properties of monolithic, full‐contour Zi crowns were poorly investigated when compared to Zi copings veneered with feldspathic ceramic.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intrasubject comparison of digital vs. conventional workflow for screw‐retained single‐implant crowns: Prosthodontic and patient‐centered outcomes

Delize

Bouhy

Lambert

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The aim of this intrasubject clinical study was to measure and compare prosthodontic and patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the fabrication of implant‐supported, all‐ceramic single crowns with a full digital workflow and a conventional workflow. Materials and methods Thirty‐one patients were subjected to first a digital (test group) and then a conventional impression (control group) at the same visit. From the intraoral optical scanner (IOS), a screw‐retained, monolithic crown was delivered according to a complete digital workflow (no cast), whereas a veneered crown on a zirconia (Zi) frame was provided as a control treatment. Both crowns were assessed during the clinical stages of try‐in. Prosthodontic outcomes (contact points, occlusion, PROMs, and esthetic results using the white esthetic score [WES]) were assessed. Results Occlusion and interproximal contacts showed comparable results for the two workflows (p = 0.37 and p = 0.36, respectively), whereas the global WES was significantly higher (p < 0.0001) in the control group. Patient satisfaction scores, using visual analog scales (VAS), were significantly better for IOS than for conventional impressions (p = 0.0098). On the contrary, patients’ perception of the esthetic outcomes showed significantly higher value (p < 0.0001) in the control group. Conclusions Both workflows allowed the delivery of ceramic crowns within two appointments. The clinical fit was acceptable in both groups. A better esthetic outcome, in both patients’ and clinicians’ opinions, was found in the control group. PROMs showed higher satisfaction with the IOS.

show abstract

“…Zirconia ceramics have presented the best mechanical properties among the ceramics . Two main zirconia restoration categories include zirconia‐based and monolithic zirconia restorations .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Color Aspect of Monolithic Zirconia Restorations: A Review of the Literature

Tabatabaian

2018

Journal of Prosthodontics

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monolithic zirconia restoration is an acceptable treatment option in restorative dentistry and a developing trend in esthetic dentistry. Digital dentistry has simplified fabrication of monolithic zirconia restorations. Zirconia ceramic has introduced an opportunity to achieve both esthetic and mechanical requirements for restorations. This is rarely found for a ceramic in dentistry. Monolithic zirconia restorations represent an acceptable durability, comparable to metal-ceramic restorations, while they are superior to metal-ceramic restorations esthetically; however, difficulties to gain an optimal shade reproduction and a color match with monolithic zirconia restorations still remain. The color of these restorations may be influenced by manufacturing processes, laboratory procedures, and clinical factors. Manufacturing processes determine basic optical properties of zirconia ceramics. Different laboratory procedures may create optical changes in zirconia ceramics. Also clinical factors such as dental background, cement, and zirconia restoration features may affect the resulting color. This literature review aimed to discuss potent factors in the color of monolithic zirconia restorations. An electronic search of the PubMed/Google Scholar database was performed to find related English-language articles published between January 1, 2000, and October 31, 2017. The key terms of background, cement, ceramic, color, esthetics, shade, spectrophotometry, thickness, translucency, and zirconia were used both individually and simultaneously. Also, a manual search was conducted, and five classic articles of color science were added. Thus 192 articles were included. In the last decade, shade reproduction of monolithic zirconia restorations has been highly regarded; however, further improvements are required in the manufacturing process to produce tooth-like zirconia ceramics. An esthetic guideline named background-cement-ceramic color harmony was suggested in this study; however, more clinical practice guidelines should be established for monolithic zirconia restorations on esthetics, and therefore, more studies are required.

show abstract

Fracture rate of monolithic zirconia restorations up to 5 years: A dental laboratory survey

Abstract: Within the relative short-term evaluation of 5 years, restorations fabricated from monolithic zirconia material displayed relatively low fracture rates. Anterior restorations fractured at a slightly higher rate than posterior restorations, and FDPs fractured at a rate double that of SCs.

Cited by 91 publications

References 13 publications

Dental ceramics: a review of new materials and processing methods

Dental ceramics: a review of new materials and processing methods

Intrasubject comparison of digital vs. conventional workflow for screw‐retained single‐implant crowns: Prosthodontic and patient‐centered outcomes

Color Aspect of Monolithic Zirconia Restorations: A Review of the Literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About