Three-year clinical evaluation of two ceramic crown systems: A preliminary study

Etman, Maged K.; Woolford, Mark

doi:10.1016/s0022-3913(10)60010-8

Cited by 108 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These ceramics exhibit a translucency and aesthetic appearance superior to those high strength polycrystalline alternatives 18) . However, the mechanical properties limit their use in the molar area [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic: lights and shadows of a new material

Traini

Sinjari

Pascetta³

et al. 2016

Dental Materials Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to investigate the mechanical properties, composition and surface preparation for adhesive bonding of the recently introduced zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) glass-ceramic. One single block of ZLS was used to prepare the specimens (n=14). The fracture toughness (Ft) and the Vickers hardness (HV) were measured on specimens partially crystallized (PCs) (n=4) and fully crystallized (FCs) at 840°C for 8 min (n=4). The surface treatment was done using hydrofluoric-acid gel (HF) at different concentrations and times of action on FCs specimens (n=4). SEM-EDX was used to test elemental composition and crystalline phases (n=2). The new ZLS glass-ceramic showed significantly higher values of HV and Ft for FCs, PCs showed a brittle behavior. The surface etching should be made using HF at 4.9% for 20 s.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic: lights and shadows of a new material

Traini

Sinjari

Pascetta³

et al. 2016

Dental Materials Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Monolithic crowns made of glass-ceramics based on lithium-disilicate have shown improved strength compared to earlier glass-ceramics and been suggested to be used for both anterior and posterior restorations (3). Few clinical trials have been conducted, but show promising results (4)(5)(6).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fracture strength of ceramic monolithic crown systems of different thickness

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The majority of the restorations were PFM crown (20) while the other of restorations was 10 restorations for each (composite resin, e. max and zirconia). All the restorations were evaluated clinically and radiographic at the different periods one week of cementation, 3, 6, 9, 12 months respectively.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of maxillary anterior endodontically treated teeth restored with different types of crowns

Moaleem

Mobaraky²,

Madkhali³

et al. 2017

IJDR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Statement of the problem: restoring endodontically treated teeth (ETT) is one of the major treatments provided by a dentist. Glass fiber posts (GFP) showed good clinical performance during last few years. Aim of the study; to assess and compare the clinical as well as the radiographic performance of different types of ceramic crown systems used in restoration of maxillary anterior teeth over a cemented GFP and composite resin core. Materials and methods: 50 ETT with GFP were included in this study. These teeth were divided into four gropes (composite resin. Porcelain fused to metal (PFM), e. max and zirconia restorations). Both the clinical and radiographic assessments were done for the restoration at a period of one week, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after composite build up and crown's cementations. All data were registered and analyzed by SPSS program using percentages and Kaplan-Meyer analysis. Fisher's exact test was used for categorical values while logrank test was used for descriptive statistical analysis. Results: the clinical assessment showed no changes in the one week, 3 and 6 months in the four groups. While during the 9 and 12 months, a movement of the crown margin under finger pressure was present in one case, loss or retention in 2 cases of zirconia, the periodontal status with violation of biological width was present in one case of PFM and finally the color changes were obvious in one case of PFM and 2 cases of composite restoration. All the restorations in the four groups had no radiographic changes in the one week and three-month assessments. While during six-month follow-up, a loosed of retention in one case of the zirconia crown was detected. At the 9 and 12 months, two cases showed recurrent caries at the cervical margin of the composite restoration, cases with periapical infection and other with loss of retention of the post were recorded in the PFM restoration. Conclusion: e. Max and zirconia all ceramic crowns showed better clinical and radiographic performance than the PFM and composite restorations over 12 months recall.

show abstract

Three-year clinical evaluation of two ceramic crown systems: A preliminary study

Cited by 108 publications

References 20 publications

The zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic: lights and shadows of a new material

The zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic: lights and shadows of a new material

Fracture strength of ceramic monolithic crown systems of different thickness

Evaluation of maxillary anterior endodontically treated teeth restored with different types of crowns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About