Georgios Maroulakos1, Geoffrey A Thompson2, Elias D Kontogiorgos3. 1. Assistant Professor of Prosthodontics, Department of General Dental Sciences, Marquette University School of Dentistry, Milwaukee, Wis. Electronic address: gmaroulakos@yahoo.gr. 2. Associate Professor and Director, Graduate Prosthodontics, Department of General Dental Sciences, Marquette University School of Dentistry, Milwaukee, Wis. 3. Clinical Professor, Department of Restorative Sciences, Texas A&M University College of Dentistry, Dallas, Texas.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Zirconia and lithium disilicate have been commonly used as materials for tooth-supported complete-coverage restorations. Adhesive and conventional cements have been suggested for cementation of these restorations. However, evidence on the effect of cement type on the clinical outcomes of teeth restored with zirconia or lithium disilicate restorations is unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of teeth restored with zirconia or lithium disilicate restorations when adhesive or conventional cements are used. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This systematic review adopted the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and was registered at the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42018096493). An electronic search was performed in 2 databases (MEDLINE-PubMed and Cochrane Central), and a manual search, from January 2008 through January 2018. The primary clinical question was framed according to the Problem/Patient/Population, Intervention/Indicator, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) approach. The following question was the primary clinical question: "For patients requiring a single tooth-supported complete-coverage ceramic restoration, does adhesive cementation, as compared with conventional cementation, improve the clinical performance and limit the complications of this restoration?" The search included articles published in peer-reviewed journals in English and was limited to randomized clinical trials and prospective and retrospective clinical studies. RESULTS: Seventeen clinical studies met the eligibility criteria and were included for qualitative analysis. Included studies had 1280 participants who received 2436 zirconia and lithium disilicate crowns. The survival rates for adhesively cemented zirconia crowns ranged from 83.3% to 100%, whereas those reported for conventionally cemented zirconia crowns ranged from 82.0% to 100%. Survival rates for adhesively cemented lithium disilicate crowns ranged from 83.5% to 100%, whereas the survival rate reported for conventionally cemented lithium disilicate crowns was 98.5%. Commonly reported clinical complications included fracture of the veneering ceramic, crown fracture, and loss of crown retention. The mean follow-up time ranged from 25.5 months to 121.2 months. The studies that were assessed for risk of bias showed poor quality of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence and within the limitations of this systematic review, zirconia and lithium disilicate tooth-supported crowns exhibited comparable survival rates and complication patterns after adhesive or conventional cementation.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Zirconia and lithium disilicate have been commonly used as materials for tooth-supported complete-coverage restorations. Adhesive and conventional cements have been suggested for cementation of these restorations. However, evidence on the effect of cement type on the clinical outcomes of teeth restored with zirconia or lithium disilicate restorations is unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of teeth restored with zirconia or lithium disilicate restorations when adhesive or conventional cements are used. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This systematic review adopted the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and was registered at the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42018096493). An electronic search was performed in 2 databases (MEDLINE-PubMed and Cochrane Central), and a manual search, from January 2008 through January 2018. The primary clinical question was framed according to the Problem/Patient/Population, Intervention/Indicator, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) approach. The following question was the primary clinical question: "For patients requiring a single tooth-supported complete-coverage ceramic restoration, does adhesive cementation, as compared with conventional cementation, improve the clinical performance and limit the complications of this restoration?" The search included articles published in peer-reviewed journals in English and was limited to randomized clinical trials and prospective and retrospective clinical studies. RESULTS: Seventeen clinical studies met the eligibility criteria and were included for qualitative analysis. Included studies had 1280 participants who received 2436 zirconia and lithium disilicate crowns. The survival rates for adhesively cemented zirconia crowns ranged from 83.3% to 100%, whereas those reported for conventionally cemented zirconia crowns ranged from 82.0% to 100%. Survival rates for adhesively cemented lithium disilicate crowns ranged from 83.5% to 100%, whereas the survival rate reported for conventionally cemented lithium disilicate crowns was 98.5%. Commonly reported clinical complications included fracture of the veneering ceramic, crown fracture, and loss of crown retention. The mean follow-up time ranged from 25.5 months to 121.2 months. The studies that were assessed for risk of bias showed poor quality of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence and within the limitations of this systematic review, zirconia and lithium disilicate tooth-supported crowns exhibited comparable survival rates and complication patterns after adhesive or conventional cementation.
Authors: Ryan Harouny; Louis Hardan; Elie Harouny; Cynthia Kassis; Rim Bourgi; Monika Lukomska-Szymanska; Naji Kharouf; Vincent Ball; Carlos Khairallah Journal: Bioengineering (Basel) Date: 2022-06-29