Clinical outcomes of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate partial coverage crowns compared to lithium disilicate partial coverage crowns. A randomized controlled split-mouth clinical study

Abstract

Background: Despite the fact that preliminary clinical results of conservative partial coverage restorations (PCRs) are promising, the clinical behavior of different PCR ceramic materials is rarely investigated in clinical trials. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of partial coverage restorations (PCR) fabricated with zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramic system compared to partial coverage restorations fabricated with lithium disilicate ceramic system. Methods: 46 vital premolars and molars of 14 patients were restored with PCRs (23 Vita Suprinity and 23 IPS e.max CAD). PCRs were CAD/CAM fabricated in the lab and adhesively luted with dual-polymerizing resin cement (Duolink. BISCO, USA). Clinical evaluation of PCRs was performed according to the Modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) at baseline, 6 and 12 months post-insertion. Absolute failure was demonstrated by Kaplan-Meier survival rate analysis. Results: After 12 months observation, all PCRs of both ceramic groups demonstrated 100% survival rate. Non-significant decrease in Alpha ratings for marginal adaptation (p = 0.1560) and marginal discoloration (p = 0.6078) in e-max group. While in the Suprinity group, PCRs demonstrated 100% Alpha ratings for marginal adaptation and only one Bravo rating (p= 0.3625) for marginal discoloration after 12 month observation. Conclusions: Both Vita-Suprinity and e.max CAD partial coverage restorations are considered reliable treatment options for restoring larger defects in posterior dentition. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02861729 04/08/2016

Longevity of Polymer-Infiltrated Ceramic Network and Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Thirty-five of the included articles were excluded with reasons given for their exclusion shown in Figure 1 . The nine remaining studies were included in qualitative and quantitative data synthesis [ 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ]. During an updated search on 1 February 2021, only one additional clinical study was found, but was not included as it was a case series.…”

“…Of the nine included studies, five investigated PICN [ 37 , 38 , 40 , 43 , 44 ] and four investigated ZLS ( Table 2 ) [ 39 , 41 , 42 , 45 ]. Studies investigating PICN were published from 2016 to 2020 and had follow up periods ranging from 2 to 3 years, of which four had a prospective study design [ 38 , 40 , 43 , 44 ] and one retrospective design [ 37 ].…”

“…Studies investigating ZLS were published in a similar time frame from 2017 to 2020. The follow-up period for the studies ranged from 1 to 3 years, with two studies presenting only a 1 year follow-up period [ 39 , 45 ]. Of the studies investigating ZLS, three were prospective study designs [ 41 , 42 , 45 ] and one was a double-blinded randomised controlled split-mouth design [ 39 ].…”

“…The follow-up period for the studies ranged from 1 to 3 years, with two studies presenting only a 1 year follow-up period [ 39 , 45 ]. Of the studies investigating ZLS, three were prospective study designs [ 41 , 42 , 45 ] and one was a double-blinded randomised controlled split-mouth design [ 39 ]. A total of 230 restorations were assessed at the end of the follow up periods with restoration drop-out rates ranging from 2.2% [ 41 ] to 9.75% [ 45 ].…”

“…A total of 230 restorations were assessed at the end of the follow up periods with restoration drop-out rates ranging from 2.2% [ 41 ] to 9.75% [ 45 ]. Of the four studies, three were performed in a university setting [ 39 , 41 , 45 ] and one in a private practice setting [ 42 ]. All studies involving ZLS excluded patients with bruxism.…”