OBJECTIVES: This prospective, randomized clinical split-mouth study investigated the 5-year performance of InCeram Alumina posterior crowns cemented with three different luting cements. 4-META- and MDP-based cements were used for adhesive luting. Glass ionomer cement served as control. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Sixty patients were treated with 149 (n = 62 Panavia F/MDP; n = 59 SuperBond-C&B/4-META; n = 28Ketac Cem/glassionomer) InCeram Alumina crowns on vital molars and premolars in a comparable position. Follow-up examinations were performed annually up to 5 years after crown placement using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis comprised secondary caries, clinically unacceptable fractures, root canal treatment and debonding. Kaplan-Meier success rate included restorations with minimal crevices, tolerable color deviations (<1 Vitashade), and clinically acceptable fractures. Logistic regression models with a random intercept were fitted. RESULTS: The 5-year Kaplan-Meier survival probabilities were: SuperBond-C&B 88.7 %, Panavia F 82.8 %, Ketac Cem 80.1 % with no significant difference (p = .813). Endodontical treatment was carried out on 7.4 % of all abutment teeth, and 5.4 % revealed secondary caries. Unacceptable ceramic fractures were observed in 7.4 %. Debonding was a rare complication (1.3 %). The 5 year Kaplan-Meier success rate was 91.6 % for SuperBond-C&B-, 87.4 % for Ketac Cem- and 86.3 % for Panavia F-bonded restorations with no significant difference (p = .624). All cement types showed significant marginal deterioration over time (p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Posterior InCeram Alumina crowns showed acceptable long-term survival and success rates independent of luting agent used. Ceramic fractures, endodontical treatments and secondary caries were the most frequent failures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Glass-infiltrated Alumina crowns in combination with adhesive as well as conventional cementation can be considered as a reliable treatment option in posterior teeth.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: This prospective, randomized clinical split-mouth study investigated the 5-year performance of InCeram Alumina posterior crowns cemented with three different luting cements. 4-META- and MDP-based cements were used for adhesive luting. Glass ionomer cement served as control. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty patients were treated with 149 (n = 62 Panavia F/MDP; n = 59 SuperBond-C&B/4-META; n = 28 Ketac Cem/glass ionomer) InCeram Alumina crowns on vital molars and premolars in a comparable position. Follow-up examinations were performed annually up to 5 years after crown placement using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis comprised secondary caries, clinically unacceptable fractures, root canal treatment and debonding. Kaplan-Meier success rate included restorations with minimal crevices, tolerable color deviations (<1 Vitashade), and clinically acceptable fractures. Logistic regression models with a random intercept were fitted. RESULTS: The 5-year Kaplan-Meier survival probabilities were: SuperBond-C&B 88.7 %, Panavia F 82.8 %, Ketac Cem 80.1 % with no significant difference (p = .813). Endodontical treatment was carried out on 7.4 % of all abutment teeth, and 5.4 % revealed secondary caries. Unacceptable ceramic fractures were observed in 7.4 %. Debonding was a rare complication (1.3 %). The 5 year Kaplan-Meier success rate was 91.6 % for SuperBond-C&B-, 87.4 % for Ketac Cem- and 86.3 % for Panavia F-bonded restorations with no significant difference (p = .624). All cement types showed significant marginal deterioration over time (p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Posterior InCeram Alumina crowns showed acceptable long-term survival and success rates independent of luting agent used. Ceramic fractures, endodontical treatments and secondary caries were the most frequent failures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Glass-infiltrated Alumina crowns in combination with adhesive as well as conventional cementation can be considered as a reliable treatment option in posterior teeth.
Authors: Murat Cavit Cehreli; Ali Murat Kokat; Can Ozpay; Durdu Karasoy; Kivanc Akca Journal: Int J Prosthodont Date: 2011 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.681
Authors: Markus B Blatz; Francis K Mante; Najeed Saleh; Alan M Atlas; Sahurabh Mannan; Fusun Ozer Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Mohammed S Bin-Shuwaish; Yasser F AlFawaz; Hamad A AlGamaiah; Abdulaziz S AlSani; Ibrahim B Abobakr; Khaled M Alzahrani; Basil Almutairi; Esraa A Attar; Fahim Vohra; Tariq Abduljabbar Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-08 Impact factor: 3.390