Wear of metal-free resin composite crowns after three years in service

Abstract

To compare differences between the wear behavior of two types of metal-free resin composite crown with a control after three years in clinical service. Sixty-six participants needing one to three posterior single crowns were fitted with 120 crowns. Abutment teeth were randomly assigned to three groups: 40 resin composite crowns with fiber-reinforced framework, 40 resin composite crowns without fiber-reinforced framework, and 40 metal-ceramic crowns. To assess wear, gypsum replicas of the crowns were fabricated and scanned with a 3D laser scanner at baseline and after three years. Differences between the groups were analyzed by use of mixedeffects regression models. Wear of resin composite crowns with fiber-reinforced framework (p=0.0043) and resin composite crowns without framework (p=0.0246) was significantly greater than in the metal-ceramic group. Wear of metal-free resin composite crowns after three years was significantly greater than that of metal-ceramic crowns, but the wear was still clinically acceptable.

In vivo wear of CAD-CAM composite versus lithium disilicate full coverage first-molar restorations: a pilot study over 2 years

“…The wear rates differed significantly between different research groups; Etman et al [38] stated wear of 148 μm after first year for lithium disilicate glass-ceramic posterior crowns, whereas Kramer et al [39] determined it as 78 μm after 4 year for ceramic inlays made of lithium disilicate. Only very few studies investigated wear of posterior composite crowns in vivo and reported wear to be around 40 μm/year, which is considerably lower than values found in this study [17,18]. Although there is an abundance of clinical data on the wear characteristics of direct composite restorations, literature shows a considerable variation in results from 50 to 200 μm per year [30,40,41].…”

“…DeLong et.al reported that the estimation of superimposition for samples of clinical studies usually fluctuate from 10 to 20 μm per point; they considered the superimposition of less than 10 μm to be an excellent fit, whereas a value of more than 50 μm indicates a poor fit [15]. This goes in line with other clinical investigations in measuring wear, where workflow inaccuracy in the range of 15-20 μm was considered acceptable [18,[23][24][25][26]. Schmid-Schwap et al [27] even set the limit at 30 μm for standard deviation/workflow inaccuracies for molars as reasonable, as they are more difficult to superimpose.…”

“…Many different 3-D measuring techniques were used in the past, to provide quantitative data on dental materials wear [15,16]. These comparable methods were used in previous studies mostly reporting on the wear of single posterior composite crowns to be around 40 μm/year [17,18]. The difference to the present study is that single crowns located within a tooth row were evaluated, but not a full arch reconstruction was conducted out of composite material.…”

Travel beyond Clinical Uses of Fiber Reinforced Composites (FRCs) in Dentistry: A Review of Past Employments, Present Applications, and Future Perspectives

“…Finally, the absence of metallic parts in the FRC structure allows their use also in patients allergic to nickel or other metals. Noteworthy is that FRCs can be indicated in patients who need to undergo nuclear magnetic resonance exams [ 78 ].…”

Bond strength between a veneering composite resin and zirconia frameworks with attached mechanical retentive devices

“…Previous studies have suggested that the use of resin-veneered restorations with metallic frameworks for implant-supported prostheses eases the occlusal force or stress distribution around the implant 10,11) . However, composite resins have drawbacks, such as their low wear resistance 12) , low fracture resistance 13) , discoloration 14) , and facilitated plaque accumulation 15) . Resin-veneered restorations with zirconia frameworks have been introduced, and favorable results have been achieved with regard to the fracture resistance 16,17) and the bond strength of the veneering composite resin to zirconia frameworks 18,19) .…”