Maren Teichmann1, Fabian Göckler2, Marcia Rückbeil3, Volker Weber4, Daniel Edelhoff5, Stefan Wolfart2. 1. Department of Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, Center of Implantology, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. mteichmann@ukaachen.de. 2. Department of Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, Center of Implantology, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. 3. Department of Medical Statistics, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. 4. Dental laboratory Impladent GmbH, Kullenhofstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. 5. Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Goethestr. 70, 80336, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical quality of tooth-supported crowns (SCs), implant-supported crowns (ISCs), and fixed dental prosthesis (FDPs) made of a lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic framework material (IPS Empress 2, Ivoclar Vivadent) after long-term use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1997 and 1999, 184 restorations (106 SCs, 32 ISCs, 33 FDPs, 13 diverse restorations) were placed in 73 patients. In 2012/2013, all patients with functioning restorations were invited to participate in a clinical follow-up examination. To investigate the clinical quality, modified California Dental Association (CDA) criteria, periodontal health, and the patient's opinion were evaluated. RESULTS: After 14 years on average, 50 restorations were available for evaluation of the CDA criteria and the patient's opinion, and 24 restorations were available for the periodontal health evaluation. Surface, color, anatomic shape, and margin integrity were considered to be in the range of excellence in 54, 78, 96, and 88%, respectively. There were no unacceptable defects. Most patients (64%) were still entirely satisfied with their restorations. Mean probing depths were significantly higher on teeth with tooth-supported Empress 2 restorations than on control teeth (p = 0.0401). No significant relationship was found between surface quality and plaque accumulation (p = 0.9450, generalized linear mixed model) or between surface quality and periodontal probing ≥ 4 mm (p = 0.4184, generalized linear mixed model). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical quality of the Empress 2 restorations that had survived 14 years on average was totally satisfactory with regard to esthetics, design, and patient's opinion. The periodontal health of all-ceramic restored teeth requires further investigation. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The practitioner's choice of dental materials is based, at best, on long-term experience. With diminishing concerns about the clinical longevity of all-ceramic restorations, the grading of clinical quality based on esthetics, design, periodontal response, and patients' opinions could, nowadays, serve as a measure for the efficiency of dental ceramic.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical quality of tooth-supported crowns (SCs), implant-supported crowns (ISCs), and fixed dental prosthesis (FDPs) made of a lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic framework material (IPS Empress 2, Ivoclar Vivadent) after long-term use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1997 and 1999, 184 restorations (106 SCs, 32 ISCs, 33 FDPs, 13 diverse restorations) were placed in 73 patients. In 2012/2013, all patients with functioning restorations were invited to participate in a clinical follow-up examination. To investigate the clinical quality, modified California Dental Association (CDA) criteria, periodontal health, and the patient's opinion were evaluated. RESULTS: After 14 years on average, 50 restorations were available for evaluation of the CDA criteria and the patient's opinion, and 24 restorations were available for the periodontal health evaluation. Surface, color, anatomic shape, and margin integrity were considered to be in the range of excellence in 54, 78, 96, and 88%, respectively. There were no unacceptable defects. Most patients (64%) were still entirely satisfied with their restorations. Mean probing depths were significantly higher on teeth with tooth-supported Empress 2 restorations than on control teeth (p = 0.0401). No significant relationship was found between surface quality and plaque accumulation (p = 0.9450, generalized linear mixed model) or between surface quality and periodontal probing ≥ 4 mm (p = 0.4184, generalized linear mixed model). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical quality of the Empress 2 restorations that had survived 14 years on average was totally satisfactory with regard to esthetics, design, and patient's opinion. The periodontal health of all-ceramic restored teeth requires further investigation. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The practitioner's choice of dental materials is based, at best, on long-term experience. With diminishing concerns about the clinical longevity of all-ceramic restorations, the grading of clinical quality based on esthetics, design, periodontal response, and patients' opinions could, nowadays, serve as a measure for the efficiency of dental ceramic.
Entities:
Keywords:
Ceramics; Clinical quality; Clinical research; Material sciences; Prosthodontics