Literature DB >> 22192254

Standardizing failure, success, and survival decisions in clinical studies of ceramic and metal-ceramic fixed dental prostheses.

Kenneth J Anusavice1.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: The recent increase in reports from clinical studies of ceramic chipping has raised the question of which criteria should constitute success or failure of total-ceramic prostheses. Terminologies such as minor chipping [1], partial chipping, technical complications [2,3], and biological complications have crept into the dental terminology and they have complicated our classification of success and failure of these crown and bridge restorations. Some journals have permitted the reporting of fractures as "complications" and they are not necessarily classified as failures in the study. One study has attempted to classify chipping fractures according to their severity and subsequent treatment [4]. This is a promising approach to resolve the challenges to the classification of chipping fracture. The term 'chipping fracture' is more descriptive than 'chipping' since the latter term tends to imply an event of minor consequence. Two types of statistics are reported routinely in these studies, i.e., percent success, which is a measure of restorations that survive without any adverse effects, and percent survival, which is a measure of all restorations that survive even though they may have exhibited chipping fracture or they may have been repaired. Why has this scenario occurred? One possible explanation is that many of these types of fractures are very small and do not affect function or esthetics. Another reason is that corporate sponsors prefer to use the term chipping since it does not connote failure in the sense that the term fracture does. In any event, we need to be more precise in our scientific observations of fracture and classifications of the various types of fracture including details on the location of fracture and the prosthesis design configuration. Because of the lack of standardized methods for describing chipping fractures, materials scientists are unable to properly analyze the effect of material properties and design factors on the time-dependent survival probability of ceramic fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Based on the review of clinical trials and systematic reviews of these trials, the present study was designed to develop guidelines for classifying the functional performance, success, survival, and susceptibility to chipping fracture, and subsequent treatment of ceramic and metal-ceramic restorations.
OBJECTIVE: To develop comprehensive descriptive guidelines and a clinical reporting form to assist dental scientists in their analyses of chipping fracture behavior of metal-ceramic and all-ceramic prostheses with particular emphasis on veneered-zirconia restorations. These guidelines are required to optimize the recording of fracture features that can be used to differentiate ceramic chipping fracture from bulk fracture and to assist dentists in identifying subsequent treatment that may minimize the need to replace affected restorations. A recording form for clinical fracture observations must be sufficiently clear and complete so that dental health professionals can translate the most relevant information in a context that allows their patients to fully understand the potential risks and benefits of treatment with ceramic restorations. It should clearly allow a clinician to determine whether or not a ceramic fracture constitutes a failure, which requires replacement of the prosthesis, or whether the fracture surface is relatively small or located in a nonfunctional area, i.e., one that is not contribute to occlusion, esthetics, proximal contacts, or food impaction. To accomplish this task, a review of the relevant publications of clinical trials was necessary to identify the variability in reporting of fracture events. The reviews were focused on clinical research studies of zirconia-based FDPs and PFM FDPs, which had been monitored through recall exams for three years or more. These reports and systematic reviews of all relevant publications were published in English dental journals between 2004 and 2010.The primary focus in this review was on the susceptibility to chipping fracture or bulk fracture of veneered zirconia-based fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and metal-ceramic FDPs, which are also referred to in this paper as porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) FDPs.
Copyright © 2011 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22192254      PMCID: PMC3271854          DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.09.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dent Mater        ISSN: 0109-5641            Impact factor:   5.304


  25 in total

1.  Challenges with studies investigating longevity of dental restorations--a critique of a systematic review.

Authors:  B Chadwick; E Treasure; P Dummer; F Dunstan; A Gilmour; R Jones; C Phillips; J Stevens; J Rees; S Richmond
Journal:  J Dent       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 2.  Clinically relevant approach to failure testing of all-ceramic restorations.

Authors:  J R Kelly
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 3.426

3.  Assessment of the clinical quality of health care. Search for a reliable method.

Authors:  G Ryge; R G DeVincenzi
Journal:  Eval Health Prof       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 2.651

4.  Development of a clinically validated bulk failure test for ceramic crowns.

Authors:  J Robert Kelly; Patchnee Rungruanganunt; Ben Hunter; Francesca Vailati
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 3.426

Review 5.  Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Science Committee Project 2/98--FDI World Dental Federation study design (Part I) and criteria for evaluation (Part II) of direct and indirect restorations including onlays and partial crowns.

Authors:  Reinhard Hickel; Jean-François Roulet; Stephen Bayne; Siegward D Heintze; Ivar A Mjör; Mathilde Peters; Valentin Rousson; Ros Randall; Gottfried Schmalz; Martin Tyas; Guido Vanherle
Journal:  J Adhes Dent       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.359

6.  Five-year clinical results of zirconia frameworks for posterior fixed partial dentures.

Authors:  Irena Sailer; Aurel Fehér; Frank Filser; Ludwig J Gauckler; Heinz Lüthy; Christoph Hans Franz Hämmerle
Journal:  Int J Prosthodont       Date:  2007 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.681

Review 7.  Performance of dental ceramics: challenges for improvements.

Authors:  E D Rekow; N R F A Silva; P G Coelho; Y Zhang; P Guess; V P Thompson
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2011-01-11       Impact factor: 6.116

8.  Clinical criteria.

Authors:  G Ryge
Journal:  Int Dent J       Date:  1980-12       Impact factor: 2.512

Review 9.  Which mechanical and physical testing methods are relevant for predicting the clinical performance of ceramic-based dental prostheses?

Authors:  K J Anusavice; Kunjan Kakar; N Ferree
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 5.977

Review 10.  Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs).

Authors:  Bjarni E Pjetursson; Urs Brägger; Niklaus P Lang; Marcel Zwahlen
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 5.977

View more
  43 in total

1.  Peri-implant complications for posterior endosteal implants.

Authors:  Josephine Esquivel-Upshaw; Alex Mehler; Arthur Clark; Dan Neal; Luiz Gonzaga; Kenneth Anusavice
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2014-09-27       Impact factor: 5.977

2.  Risk factors for technical and biological complications with zirconia single crowns.

Authors:  Sven Rinke; Katharina Lange; Matthias Roediger; Nikolaus Gersdorff
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2015-02-07       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  Clinical evaluation of zirconia-based all-ceramic single crowns: an up to 12-year retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Shoko Miura; Shin Kasahara; Shinobu Yamauchi; Yayoi Okuyama; Akio Izumida; Jun Aida; Hiroshi Egusa
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2017-06-12       Impact factor: 3.573

4.  Resin-based composite performance: are there some things we can't predict?

Authors:  Jack L Ferracane
Journal:  Dent Mater       Date:  2012-07-17       Impact factor: 5.304

5.  Survival and success rates of soft-milled cobalt-chromium-ceramic full-arch screw-retained implant-supported prostheses: a 2- to 7-year follow-up retrospective study.

Authors:  S Levartovsky; A Arieli; N Fridenberg; S Matalon; R Pilo
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2021-02-22       Impact factor: 3.573

6.  Load-bearing properties of minimal-invasive monolithic lithium disilicate and zirconia occlusal onlays: finite element and theoretical analyses.

Authors:  Li Ma; Petra C Guess; Yu Zhang
Journal:  Dent Mater       Date:  2013-05-15       Impact factor: 5.304

7.  Monolithic and bi-layer CAD/CAM lithium-disilicate versus metal-ceramic fixed dental prostheses: comparison of fracture loads and failure modes after fatigue.

Authors:  Stefan Schultheis; Joerg R Strub; Thomas A Gerds; Petra C Guess
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2012-09-22       Impact factor: 3.573

8.  Fracture analysis of randomized implant-supported fixed dental prostheses.

Authors:  Josephine F Esquivel-Upshaw; Alex Mehler; Arthur E Clark; Dan Neal; Kenneth J Anusavice
Journal:  J Dent       Date:  2014-07-09       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Time-dependent fracture probability of bilayer, lithium-disilicate-based, glass-ceramic, molar crowns as a function of core/veneer thickness ratio and load orientation.

Authors:  Kenneth J Anusavice; Osama M Jadaan; Josephine F Esquivel-Upshaw
Journal:  Dent Mater       Date:  2013-09-21       Impact factor: 5.304

10.  Randomized clinical trial of implant-supported ceramic-ceramic and metal-ceramic fixed dental prostheses: preliminary results.

Authors:  Josephine F Esquivel-Upshaw; Arthur E Clark; Jonathan J Shuster; Kenneth J Anusavice
Journal:  J Prosthodont       Date:  2013-06-12       Impact factor: 2.752

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.