Factors that Influence the Clinical Longevity of Ceramic Unit Restoration: A Scoping Review



Abstract Views
0

Downloads
0

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Feb 23, 2022
Published Mar 30, 2022
10.24018/ejdent.2022.3.2.178

Abstract viewed = 0 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Statement of Problem: Ceramic restorations can be essential in dental rehabilitation aesthetic and functional, but its longevity and treatment plan need to be good settled down. Different material options, manufacturing techniques and protocols are available. It is important to map the literature to know the state of the art about of clinical failures related to these fixed prostheses.

Purpose: Evaluate the rate of survival of single restorations (crowns and ceramic veneers) as well as identify the types of clinical complications reported.

Material and methods: A scoping review was conducted from the MEDLINE/Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library. A search of all published literature until June 2021 was based on the following keywords: ('dental crown' OR 'ceramic veneer' OR 'porcelain veneer' OR 'dental veneer' OR 'dental porcelain') AND ('survival rate' OR 'ceramic restoration failure' OR 'prosthesis complication' OR complication).

Results: The most reported biological complications were need for treatment endodontic and detachment. The complications and technical failures involved, mainly, fractures and cracks in ceramics. There were also cases of pigmentation marginal.

Conclusion: The survival rate of single ceramic restorations is high. The main factors influencing restoration failures are bruxism, operator inexperience and inadequate cementation.

Keywords: Bruxism, ceramic, failure

References

  1. Alhekeir DF, Al-Sarhan RA, Al Mashaan AF. Porcelain laminate veneers: Clinical survey for evaluation of failure. Saudi Dent J. 2014; 26(2):6 3-7.
     Google Scholar
  2. Konstantinidis I, Trikka D, Gasparatos S, Mitsias ME. Clinical Outcomes of Monolithic Zirconia Crowns with CAD/CAM Technology. A 1-Year Follow-Up Prospective Clinical Study of 65 Patients. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018; 15(11): 2523.
     Google Scholar
  3. Solá-Ruiz MF, Baixauli-López M, Roig-Vanaclocha A, Amengual-Lorenzo J, Agustín-Panadero R. Prospective study of monolithic zirconia crowns: clinical behavior and survival rate at a 5-year follow-up. J Prosthodont Res. 2021; 65(3): 284-290.
     Google Scholar
  4. Huettig F, Gehrke UP. Early complications and performance of 327 heat-pressed lithium disilicate crowns up to five years. J Adv Prosthodont. 2016; 8(3): 194-200.
     Google Scholar
  5. Samer MS, Faraz Q, Al-Dubai SAR, Vohra F, Abdullah H, Taiyeb-Ali TB, et al. Clinical Outcomes and Predictors of Satisfaction in Patients with Improved Lithium Disilicate All-Ceramic Crowns. Med Princ Pract. 2017; 26(5): 470-479.
     Google Scholar
  6. Yu J, Yang Y, Gao J, et al. Clinical outcomes of different types of tooth-supported bilayer lithium disilicate all-ceramic restorations after functioning up to 5 years: a retrospective study. J Dent. 2016; 51: 56–61.
     Google Scholar
  7. Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JY. Clinical complications in fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 90(1): 31-41.
     Google Scholar
  8. Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Chandler J, Welch VA, Higgins JP, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019; 10: ED000142.
     Google Scholar
  9. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2018; 169(7): 467-473.
     Google Scholar
  10. Olley RC, Andiappan M, Frost PM. An up to 50-year follow-up of crown and veneer survival in a dental practice. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119(6): 935-941.
     Google Scholar
  11. Aziz A, El-Mowafy O, Paredes S. Clinical outcomes of lithium disilicate glass-ceramic crowns fabricated with CAD/CAM technology: A systematic review. Dent Med Probl. 2020; 57(2): 197-206.
     Google Scholar
  12. Gresnigt MMM, Cune MS, Schuitemaker J, van der Made SAM, Meisberger EW, Magne P, et al. Performance of ceramic laminate veneers with immediate dentine sealing: An 11 year prospective clinical trial, Dental Materials. 2019; 35(7): 1042-1052.
     Google Scholar
  13. De Angelis F, D'Arcangelo C, Angelozzi R, Vadini M. Retrospective clinical evaluation of a no-prep porcelain veneer protocol. J Prosthet Dent. 202: S0022-3913(21)00226-2.
     Google Scholar
  14. Beier US, Kapferer I, Burtscher D, Dumfahrt H. Clinical performance of porcelain laminate veneers for up to 20 years. Int J Prosthodont. 2012; 25(1): 79-85.
     Google Scholar
  15. Rinke S, Pabel AK, Schulz X, Rödiger M, Schmalz G, Ziebolz D. Retrospective evaluation of extended heat-pressed ceramic veneers after a mean observational period of 7 years. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2018; 30(4): 329-337.
     Google Scholar
  16. Layton DM, Clarke M, Walton TR. A systematic review and metaanalysis of the survival of feldspathic porcelain veneers over 5 and 10 years. Int J Prosthodont. 2012; 25: 590–603.
     Google Scholar
  17. Layton DM, Clarke M. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the survival of non-feldspathic porcelain veneers over 5 and 10 years. Int J Prosthodont. 2013; 26(2): 111–124.
     Google Scholar
  18. Petridis HP, Zekeridou A, Malliari M, Tortopidis D, Koidis P. Survival of ceramic veneers made of different materials after a minimum follow-up period of five years: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2012; 7(2): 138–152.
     Google Scholar
  19. Morimoto S, Albanesi RB, Sesma N, Agra CM, Braga MM. Main clinical outcomes of feldspathic porcelain and glass-ceramic laminate veneers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of survival and complication rates. Int J Prosthodont. 2016; 29(1): 38–49.
     Google Scholar
  20. Ortorp A, Kihl ML, Carlsson GE. A 5-year retrospective study of survival of zirconia single crowns fitted in a private clinical setting. J Dent. 2012; 40(6): 527-30.
     Google Scholar
  21. Miura S, Yamauchi S, Kasahara S, Katsuda Y, Fujisawa M, Egusa H. Clinical evaluation of monolithic zirconia crowns: a failure analysis of clinically obtained cases from a 3.5-year study. J Prosthodont Res. 2021; 65(2): 148-154.
     Google Scholar