Clinical outcomes of single crown restorations fabricated with resin-based CAD/CAM materials

Komine, Futoshi; Honda, Junichi; Kusaba, Kosuke; Kubochi, Kei; Takata, Hitoshi; Fujisawa, Masanori

doi:10.2334/josnusd.20-0195

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This suggests that the access hole may be resistant to tensile stresses. Conversely, it is known that composite resin restorations are vulnerable to the oral environment and susceptible to occlusal wear and deterioration 26) . Therefore, additional research should be conducted to determine the durability of the CAD/CAM composite resin restorations for HACs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fracture strength of implant-supported hybrid abutment crowns in premolar region fabricated using different restorative CAD/CAM materials

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated the fracture strength of hybrid abutment crowns (HACs) in the premolar region that were fabricated with different restorative computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) materials. The abutment-implant structures were randomly assigned into four groups (n=11 per group): bi-layered zirconia restorations (BL), translucent zirconia (4Y-PSZ) restorations (TZ), lithium disilicate ceramic restorations (LD), and dispersed nanoparticle-filled composite resin restorations (CM). All restorations were adhesively bonded to the titanium abutments. After the restoration-abutment complex was tightened onto the implant, the fracture strength was measured. The TZ (2.06 kN) and LD (1.87 kN) groups had significantly higher median fracture strengths than the BL (1.12 kN) and CM (1.10 kN) groups. In terms of fracture resistance, the 4Y-PSZ and lithium disilicate ceramic monolithic restorations would be superior to bi-layered 3Y-TZP and composite resin monolithic restorations for HACs in the premolar region.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fracture strength of implant-supported hybrid abutment crowns in premolar region fabricated using different restorative CAD/CAM materials

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The difference in the brand of the CAD/CAM resin block was not incorporated as a covariate because all products met certain flexural strength criteria of the material product regulation. In fact, a recent literature review has shown that the type of the commercially available CAD/CAM resin block materials does not influence the survival rate of CAD/CAM composite crown treatments [ 9 ]. In both models, there were no significant differences in the HR with respect to crown placement location.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, compared to premolars, molars are assumed to have several mechanical disadvantages as a result of the greater occlusal force applied during biting and the anatomically lower crown height. Several clinical studies have reported the clinical outcomes of CAD/CAM composite crowns [ 9 – 11 ]. For example, Miura et al published the results of a large retrospective study, reporting that the success and survival rates of CAD/CAM composite crowns applied to the premolar region were 71.7% and 96.4%, respectively, over three years [ 12 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential complications of CAD/CAM-produced resin composite crowns on molars: A retrospective cohort study over four years

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Evaluation of the clinical performance of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing-produced resin composite crowns (CAD/CAM composite crowns) on molars with a particular focus on placement location. Methods A retrospective cohort study was performed based on the clinical records of patients with CAD/CAM composite crowns on molars (June 2016 to March 2021). The hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were estimated based the Cox proportional hazard model to evaluate the effect of tooth location on complication type and occurrence. Covariates included crown location (maxilla/mandible, distalmost tooth/not distalmost tooth, and first molar/second or third molar) and endodontically treated (nonvital) or untreated (vital) tooth. Results Overall, 362 crowns were evaluated (mean follow-up: 378 days, median: 286 days), and 106 crowns (29.3%) showed complications, most frequently crown debonding. The cumulative success and survival rates were 70.9% and 93.7%, respectively, after 1 year and 49.5% and 86.5%, respectively, after 3 years. There was no significant difference in the HRs and log-rank tests in the Kaplan–Meier curves based on crown location parameters (P > 0.05). However, placement on vital teeth was associated with higher risks than on nonvital teeth (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.03–2.23). In addition, the cement as a covariate yielded a high HR. Conclusions The location of CAD/CAM composite molar crowns is unlikely a risk factor for complications; therefore, these crowns can be clinically applied to all molars. However, the application of such molar crowns to vital teeth and the use of a cement other than adhesive resin cement present risks.

show abstract

“…The abutment and antagonist teeth included in this study were single teeth. Previous studies investigated the survival rate of single crowns or teeth [25][26][27][28] and these results might be applied to the reasons for failed teeth including the abutment and antagonist teeth. Above all, a report by Goodacre et al reported the most common complications of single crowns, and these included endodontic disease, porcelain fracture, loss of retention, periodontal disease and caries [25].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The 3-year cumulative survival rates of posterior monolithic zirconia crowns and their antagonist teeth, and their influencing factors

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 3-year cumulative survival rates of posterior single monolithic zirconia crowns (MZCs) and their antagonists, and to analyze the influencing factors. Methods: The clinical outcomes of posterior single MZCs and their abutment teeth with antagonists, and the antagonists between April 2014 and September 2020 were evaluated retrospectively. The 3-year cumulative survival rates were calculated and associations between the survival time and predictor variables ("Jaw", "Tooth", and "Pulpal condition") were also verified using Cox proportional hazards models and hazard ratios (HRs). Results: The 3-year cumulative survival rate of single MZCs was 89.8% (9 of 177 MZCs, 95% confidence interval (CI): 80.0-95.1%). Cox proportional hazards models showed non-vital teeth were significantly associated with failure (HR: 2.76e + 9, P = 0.012). The 3-year cumulative survival rate of antagonists was 94.8% (7 of 171 antagonists, 95% CI: 89.3-97.6%). Non-vital antagonists were also identified as an independent predictor for failure in Cox proportional hazards models (HR: 7.83, P = 0.03). Conclusion:Although posterior single MZCs were clinically acceptable, non-vital pulpal condition could be a potential risk factor for failures in the abutment and antagonist teeth of MZCs.

show abstract

Clinical outcomes of single crown restorations fabricated with resin-based CAD/CAM materials

Cited by 13 publications

References 17 publications

Fracture strength of implant-supported hybrid abutment crowns in premolar region fabricated using different restorative CAD/CAM materials

Fracture strength of implant-supported hybrid abutment crowns in premolar region fabricated using different restorative CAD/CAM materials

Potential complications of CAD/CAM-produced resin composite crowns on molars: A retrospective cohort study over four years

The 3-year cumulative survival rates of posterior monolithic zirconia crowns and their antagonist teeth, and their influencing factors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About