Jaafar Abduo1, Raelene Jo Sambrook2. 1. Restorative Section, Melbourne Dental School, Melbourne University, 720 Swanston Street, Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia. 2. Department of Prosthodontics, Royal Dental Hospital of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the longevity of ceramic onlays and identify the factors that influence their survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search was conducted through PubMed (MEDLINE), Google Scholar and Cochrane Library, up to August 2017. The literature search aimed to retrieve all the clinical studies on the longevity of ceramic onlays. Ceramic onlay was defined as any partial ceramic restoration that covers at least one cusp. RESULTS: A total of 21 studies met the selection criteria and were deemed suitable for this review. The medium-term studies (2-5 years) indicated a survival rate of 91-100%, and the long term studies (more than 5 years) showed a survival rate of 71-98.5%. The most common reason of failure was fracture, followed by debonding and caries. The most common patterns of deterioration were loss of margin integrity and discoloration. Onlay longevity can be enhanced if the preparation allows for at least 2 mm occlusal ceramic thickness and incorporates additional retentive features. Restoring teeth that are nonvital, teeth in a more posterior region, or teeth for patients with parafunctional habits appears to be associated with greater ceramic failure. Fabrication materials and methods, and adhesive bonding system did not seem to influence onlay longevity. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical performance of the ceramic onlay appears acceptable regardless of the follow-up duration. Fracture of the ceramic onlay is the predominant cause of failure, and the most observed form of deterioration was associated with the restoration margin. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Ceramic onlay appears to be a reliable option to restore posterior teeth. The most common pattern of failure is fracture of the ceramic material. The risk of ceramic onlay failure seems to increase if the restored tooth is nonvital and the patient demonstrates parafunctional habits.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the longevity of ceramic onlays and identify the factors that influence their survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search was conducted through PubMed (MEDLINE), Google Scholar and Cochrane Library, up to August 2017. The literature search aimed to retrieve all the clinical studies on the longevity of ceramic onlays. Ceramic onlay was defined as any partial ceramic restoration that covers at least one cusp. RESULTS: A total of 21 studies met the selection criteria and were deemed suitable for this review. The medium-term studies (2-5 years) indicated a survival rate of 91-100%, and the long term studies (more than 5 years) showed a survival rate of 71-98.5%. The most common reason of failure was fracture, followed by debonding and caries. The most common patterns of deterioration were loss of margin integrity and discoloration. Onlay longevity can be enhanced if the preparation allows for at least 2 mm occlusal ceramic thickness and incorporates additional retentive features. Restoring teeth that are nonvital, teeth in a more posterior region, or teeth for patients with parafunctional habits appears to be associated with greater ceramic failure. Fabrication materials and methods, and adhesive bonding system did not seem to influence onlay longevity. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical performance of the ceramic onlay appears acceptable regardless of the follow-up duration. Fracture of the ceramic onlay is the predominant cause of failure, and the most observed form of deterioration was associated with the restoration margin. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Ceramic onlay appears to be a reliable option to restore posterior teeth. The most common pattern of failure is fracture of the ceramic material. The risk of ceramic onlay failure seems to increase if the restored tooth is nonvital and the patient demonstrates parafunctional habits.
Authors: Mario Dioguardi; Mario Alovisi; Giuseppe Troiano; Carlo Vito Alberto Caponio; Andrea Baldi; Giovanni Tommaso Rocca; Allegra Comba; Lorenzo Lo Muzio; Nicola Scotti Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2021-10-10 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Naia Bustamante-Hernández; Jose María Montiel-Company; Carlos Bellot-Arcís; José Félix Mañes-Ferrer; María Fernanda Solá-Ruíz; Rubén Agustín-Panadero; Lucía Fernández-Estevan Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Georgina García-Engra; Lucia Fernandez-Estevan; Javier Casas-Terrón; Antonio Fons-Font; Pablo Castelo-Baz; Rubén Agustín-Panadero; Juan Luis Román-Rodriguez Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2020-03-18 Impact factor: 2.430