Comparison of Metal-Ceramic and All-Ceramic Three-Unit Posterior Fixed Dental Prostheses: A 3-Year Randomized Clinical Trial

Abstract

The aim of this randomized clinical study was to compare the 3-year clinical outcome of metal-ceramic fixed dental prostheses (MC-FDPs) and zirconia all-ceramic fixed dental prostheses (AC-FDPs) replacing a posterior tooth. Materials and Methods: A sample of 34 patients with a missing posterior tooth were randomly chosen to receive either a MC-FDP (n = 17) or an AC-FDP (n = 17). The FDPs were evaluated at baseline and yearly until 3 years after cementation. They were assessed using the California Dental Association assessment system. Periodontal parameters were measured at the abutment teeth, and the contralateral teeth served as control. The statistical unit was the FDP/patient. Results: The survival rates for MC-FDPs and AC-FDPs were 100%. The success rate was 76% and 71% for MC-FDPs and AC-FDPs, respectively. Three technical complications were observed in the MC-FDP group and five in the AC-FDP group, all chipping fractures of the ceramic veneer. Furthermore, one biologic complication in the MC-FDP group (an apical lesion) was observed. No framework fractures occurred. All patients had optimal oral hygiene and showed no bleeding on periodontal probing at any of the recalls. Only minor changes in the periodontal parameters were observed during the 3 years of observation. Conclusions: Three-unit posterior MC-FDPs and AC-FDPs showed similar high survival rates and acceptable success rates after 3 years of function, and ceramic veneer chipping fracture was the most frequent complication for both types of restorations.

A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Zirconia and Metal‐Ceramic Three‐Unit Posterior Fixed Partial Dentures: A 5‐Year Follow‐Up

“…Zirconia seems to show adequate properties to guarantee clinical serviceability when used in the posterior region and may be considered a possible alternative to a MC restoration; however, few clinical studies have reported the longevity of zirconia posterior FPDs, and even fewer are randomized controlled clinical trials or compare both types of restorations. Furthermore, the results vary due to differences in the zirconia system employed, parameters analyzed, and measurement methods used . Thus, additional studies on zirconia posterior FPDs are necessary before they can be recommended for routine use.…”

Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial to Compare Posterior Implant‐Supported Modified Monolithic Zirconia and Metal‐Ceramic Single Crowns: One‐Year Results

“…Regarding comparing outcomes with metal‐ceramic and zirconia‐based design, few studies on tooth‐supported SCs and FDPs exist . Regarding implant‐supported SCs, few studies have reported on outcomes and complications with metal‐ceramic and zirconia‐based implant‐supported SCs .…”

A Three-Year Retrospective Study on Survival of Ceramic-Veneered Zirconia (Y-TZP) Fixed Dental Prostheses Performed in Private Practices

“…The success rate of zirconia FDPs has not been reported as often as the survival, but in this study the three-year success rate was 82.3%; in other studies the success rate may vary from 71% in a three-year follow-up to 89% in a five-year follow-up [28, 30]. Even longer-term follow-up studies have reported success rates, a seven-year follow-up reported 88.8% success, and Håff et al reported 73% success up to 13 years [21, 31].…”

“…In another three-year follow-up, on 17 zirconia FDPs, a 100% survival rate was reported [28]. A four-year follow-up reported a survival rate of 73.9%, and five-year follow-ups have reported 94–100% [26, 29, 30].…”