Survival Rates of Lithium Disilicate Single Restorations: A Retrospective Study

Mobilio, Nicola; Fasiol, Alberto; Catapano, Santo

doi:10.11607/ijp.5601

Cited by 23 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall results are encouraging. As expected, restoration survival rates in our study were in agreement with current data from the literature on posterior restorations [7,9], with 97.7% at 32 months and no restoration fractures observed [7,9,10]. Moreover we were able to perform a minimally invasive preparation, while maintaining adequate thicknesses and avoiding pointless loss of dental tissue, as suggested by current evidence.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Lithium disilicate posterior overlays: clinical and biomechanical features

Malchiodi

Zotti

Michela³

et al. 2019

Clin Oral Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival rate of lithium disilicate overlays in increasing occlusal vertical dimension (OVD) in the setting of minimally invasive techniques and the restoration thicknesses at different tooth sites. Materials and methods This is an observational study evaluating 43 lithium disilicate overlays (Lithium IPS e.max Press, Ivoclar Vivadent) on 8 patients, prepared with minimally invasive criteria over a follow-up period between 19 to 45 months (mean follow-up of 32 months). Occlusal vertical dimension's increase was planned using occlusal treatment plan and diagnostic waxup. Prior to adhesive cementation, restoration thicknesses were measured with a caliber. The survival rate was calculated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results Restoration survival rates at 32 months were 97.7%. One infiltration was observed, no cases of fracture occurred. The greatest thickness in monolithic restorations was detected in the cusp sides of teeth, whereas the thinnest was highlighted in the central fossa. The average amount of dental tissue removed during preparation was 0.98 mm in non-functional cusps, 0.88 mm in functional cusps, and 0.57 mm in the central fossa.Conclusions Lithium disilicate posterior overlays show an excellent complication-free survival rate, and the material allows for conservative restorations with minimum thickness. Clinical relevance Monolithic lithium disilicate overlays feature a satisfying 32-month survival rate. The technique allows to perform restorations with a minimal removal of dental tissue, while limiting fractures over time. Its esthetical performance is excellent.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Lithium disilicate posterior overlays: clinical and biomechanical features

Malchiodi

Zotti

Michela³

et al. 2019

Clin Oral Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The material offers undisputable advantages, like high fracture resistance, showed by high load-at-fracture values in table-tops/occlusal veneers, allowing reduced thickness of the restorations (1-1.5 mm), low wear and abrasive potential, adhesive bonding strength and high biocompatibility, properties that are very favourable when teeth are severely abraded or a heavy occlusal correction is needed (like in lateral postorthodontic open bite) [10,[81][82][83][84][85]. These restorative solutions have shown favourable clinical outcomes in the most recent literature, even though with limited follow-up [86,87]. A recent 3-years randomized, controlled prospective trial has shown that LS 2 partial crowns can be used as successful restorative solutions for endodontically treated posterior teeth, with no significant differences between premolar or molars and with or without the use of fiber posts [88].…”

Section: Clinical Indications and Performancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current status on lithium disilicate and zirconia: a narrative review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The introduction of the new generation of particle-filled and high strength ceramics, hybrid composites and technopolymers in the last decade has offered an extensive palette of dental materials broadening the clinical indications in fixed prosthodontics, in the light of minimally invasive dentistry dictates. Moreover, last years have seen a dramatic increase in the patients' demand for non-metallic materials, sometimes induced by metal-phobia or alleged allergies. Therefore, the attention of scientific research has been progressively focusing on such materials, particularly on lithium disilicate and zirconia, in order to shed light on properties, indications and limitations of the new protagonists of the prosthetic scene. Methods: This article is aimed at providing a narrative review regarding the state-of-the-art in the field of these popular ceramic materials, as to their physical-chemical, mechanical and optical properties, as well as to the proper dental applications, by means of scientific literature analysis and with reference to the authors' clinical experience. Results: A huge amount of data, sometimes conflicting, is available today. Both in vitro and in vivo studies pointed out the outstanding peculiarities of lithium disilicate and zirconia: unparalleled optical and esthetic properties, together with high biocompatibility, high mechanical resistance, reduced thickness and favorable wear behavior have been increasingly orientating the clinicians' choice toward such ceramics. Conclusions: The noticeable properties and versatility make lithium disilicate and zirconia materials of choice for modern prosthetic dentistry, requiring high esthetic and mechanical performances combined with a minimal invasive approach, so that the utilization of such metal-free ceramics has become more and more widespread over time.

show abstract

“…Among the available ceramics on the market, lithium disilicate stands out 2 ]) grants high resistance and the ability to reflect light very naturally [4][5][6][7]. A recent retrospective study [8] of 43 partial and total lithium disilicate restorations demonstrated a 97.7% of cumulative survival rate, and 94.2% of cumulative success rate.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bacterial Adhesion on Lithium Disilicate Ceramic Surface Exposed to Different Hydrofluoric Solutions

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The effect of Fluorine solutions on the surface and bacterial adhesion of lithium disilicate is a concern. The aim was to evaluate the surface roughness and the adhesion of Streptococcus sanguinis on lithium disilicate ceramic, under the influence of different solutions containing Fluorine. Forty lithium disilicate (IPS e.max Press Impulse) discs (2.5 × 5 mm) was divided into 4 groups (n = 10): artificial saliva (Group AS), 0.2% sodium fluoride (Group NaF), 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride gel (Group APF), and mouthwash (Group MW). Roughness analyses were performed before and after the immersion. The surface aspect was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and the adhesion of Streptococcus sanguinis were evaluated after immersion in the solutions. The data obtained were submitted to the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey test (α = 0.05). The Group APF presented a bigger roughness (3.263), statistically different to the other solutions. The bacterial adhesion in the Group APF (5.85) presented statistical difference to the other solutions. The SEM micrographs showed a rougher surface in Group APF. The 1.23% APF gel promoted major surface roughness and bacterial adhesion and could be inadequate for the use of patients with lithium disilicate ceramic restorations. Clinical significance: The Fluorine solution can affect the lithium disilicate ceramics, generating a rough and non-esthetic surface. This altered surface could be susceptible to bacterial adhesion, being directly related with periodontal health, the longevity of the restoration and the success of the rehabilitation.

show abstract

Survival Rates of Lithium Disilicate Single Restorations: A Retrospective Study

Cited by 23 publications

References 2 publications

Lithium disilicate posterior overlays: clinical and biomechanical features

Lithium disilicate posterior overlays: clinical and biomechanical features

Current status on lithium disilicate and zirconia: a narrative review

Bacterial Adhesion on Lithium Disilicate Ceramic Surface Exposed to Different Hydrofluoric Solutions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About