Wear of feldspathic-ceramic-veneered zirconia posterior FPDs after 10 years

Abstract

Background: The abrasion behavior of various ceramics is rarely investigated, though it is relevant for the clinical success of such restorations. The aim of this in vivo study was to evaluate the wear of feldspathic-ceramic-veneered zirconium oxide frameworks over a period of at least 10 years.Methods: The abrasion behavior of 15 bridge constructions from 15 different participants was examined after a period of 3, 5, and 10 years using plaster models, which were then subjected to a scanning process on the Atos II industrial scanner and digitized for three-dimensional evaluation of the abrasion by the corresponding software (ATOS Professional 7.6). The individual post-examination models were compared to the baseline model and deviations calculated in the sense of the largest, punctual loss of material in millimeters ("minimal distance"), the average abrasion in millimeters ("mean distance"), and the volume decrease in cubic millimeters ("integrated distance"). Statistical analyses were performed using the Wilcoxon sign rank test or mixed regression models. Multiple testing was considered by Benjamini-Hochberg correction. The significance level was set at 0.05.Results: We found steadily increasing wear of the ceramic. The average volume decrease was significant (P < 0.001) at 3 years and 10 years (-3.25 mm3 and -8.11 mm3, respectively).Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that the rate of volume loss in feldspathic-ceramic-veneered zirconia frameworks in the posterior region increases significantly over time. An increasing frequency of parameters was observed, particularly in the second half of the study period. However, the use of this class of materials can be considered clinically acceptable.This study is registered in DRKS - German Clinical Trials Register with the register number 00021743.

Restoring Teeth with an Advanced Lithium Disilicate Ceramic: A Case Report and 1-Year Follow-Up

“…Just like silicate ceramics, they differ greatly in their optical and mechanical properties [5]. Technique sensitivity in the processing steps, chipping of veneering materials, or even fracturing of zirconia frameworks gave rise to criticism in the past [4,[6][7][8][9][10].…”

“…Because of the benefits of adhesive bonding, short production times and high esthetics, numerous CEREC users prefer glass ceramic blocks. High success and survival rates of chairside fabricated restorations have been described [3,10,[13][14][15]. Lithium disilicate (LS2) ceramics are the most frequently used materials in chairside processing and is particularly proven in terms of esthetics and strength and therefore widely accepted and used (e.g., CEREC Tessera, Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, USA; IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) [15,16].…”