Cast gold partial crowns (CGPC) and partial ceramic crowns (PCC) are both accepted for restoring posterior teeth with extended lesions today. However, as esthetics in dentistry becomes increasingly important, CGPC are being progressively replaced by PCC. The aim of the present prospective split-mouth study was the comparison of the clinical performance of PCC and CGPC after 3 years of clinical service. Twenty-eight patients (11 men and 17 women) participated in the 3-year recall with a total of 56 restorations. In each patient, one CGPC (Degulor C) and one PCC (Vita Mark II ceramic/Cerec III) had been inserted at baseline. CGPC were placed using a zinc phosphate cement (Harvard); PCC were adhesively luted (Variolink II/Excite). All restorations were clinically assessed using modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after insertion. Twenty-eight CGPC and 14 PCC were placed in molars, and 14 PCC were placed in premolars. Early data were reported previously under the same study design. After 3 years, the evaluation according to USPHS criteria revealed no statistically significant differences between both types of restorations with the exception of marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration: A statistically significant difference within the PCC group (baseline/3 years) was determined for the criterion marginal adaptation. For the 3-year recall period, overall failure was 0% for CGPC and 6.9% for PCC. At 3 years, PCC meet American Dental Association Acceptance Guidelines criteria for tooth-colored restorative materials for posterior teeth.

Cast gold partial crowns (CGPC) are an accepted means of restoring posterior teeth with extended lesions. However, for esthetic reasons, CGPC are being increasingly substituted with partial ceramic crowns (PCC). The aim of the present prospective split-mouth study was to compare the clinical performance of PCC and CGPC. There were 29 patients (male 12, female 17) who participated in the investigation for a total of 58 restorations. In each patient, one CGPC (Degulor C) and one PCC (Vita MarkII/Cerec III) were placed. CGPC were inserted using conventional zinc-phosphate cement (Harvard); PCC were adhesively luted to the cavities (Variolink II/Excite). The restorations were clinically rated using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline and 1 and 2 years after placement. The median patient age was 38 years (range 25-54). There were 29 of the CGPC and 14 PCC placed in molars, while 15 PCC were placed in premolars. All patients were available for the 1- and the 2-year recall. One PCC (1.7%) failed and had to be replaced after 2 years in situ. The rest of the restorations were functional without need of replacement. The evaluation using USPHS criteria revealed no statistically significant differences between CGPC and PCC with the exception of anatomic form: PCC showed occlusal chipping in two cases without need of replacement. From these data, it can be concluded that PCC may provide an esthetic and tissue-conservative alternative to CGPC. However, long-term studies comparing the clinical performance and longevity of cast gold and ceramic partial crowns for posterior teeth are desirable.