Next Article in Journal
Fast and Versatile Chromatography Process Design and Operation Optimization with the Aid of Artificial Intelligence
Previous Article in Journal
Optimizing Recombinant Baculovirus Vector Design for Protein Production in Insect Cells
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Effect of PVA Binder Solvent Composition on the Microstructure and Electrical Properties of 0.98BaTiO3-0.02(Ba0.5Ca0.5)SiO3 Doped with Dy2O3
Article

Clinical Evaluation of Reduced-Thickness Monolithic Lithium-Disilicate Crowns: One-Year Follow-Up Results

1
Private Dental Office, Trg Kralja Tomislava 3, 43000 Bjelovar, Croatia
2
Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Gundulićeva 5, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editors: Sung-Churl Choi and Gye Seok An
Processes 2021, 9(12), 2119; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9122119
Received: 2 November 2021 / Revised: 19 November 2021 / Accepted: 22 November 2021 / Published: 25 November 2021
Purpose: The purpose of this in vivo study was to investigate whether the less invasive approach (reduced thickness of the restoration) will result in a comparable risk of failure and similar aesthetic results, compared to conventional layered full porcelain crowns, and can, therefore, be used as a good alternative. Material and Methods: The tested ceramic was lithium-disilicate ceramic (IPS e.max). Forty-four patients with endodontically treated premolars or molars were randomized into two groups and provided with single crowns. One group received conventional all-ceramic crowns made from a lithium-disilicate core and hand-veneered aesthetic ceramic, while another group received full-contoured lithium-disilicate ceramic crowns with reduced wall thickness than manufactures recommendations. The teeth for conventional crowns were prepared with 1 mm rounded shoulder and 2 mm occlusal reduction, while teeth for monolithic crowns were prepared with 0.6 mm wide rounded shoulder and 1 mm occlusal reduction. All crowns were prepared by the same clinician and manufactured in the same laboratory by the same technician. The survival and aesthetics of the crowns were assessed by the independent clinician. Apart from this, patients’ aesthetic satisfaction was evaluated. The assessment was double blind as both the examiner and the patients did not know which type of crown was provided. The observation period was 36 months. Survival of the crowns was assessed using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria and aesthetics and participants’ aesthetic satisfaction with the crowns was evaluated using a visual analogue scale. Results: The one-year survival rate for layered crowns was 100% and for monolithic crowns 95.5%. The median patients’ aesthetic satisfaction with both crowns was 100%. Conclusions: The results indicate similar one-year survival rate of reduced-thickness monolithic lithium-disilicate crowns and conventional veneered crowns. Differences with patients’ satisfaction with the aesthetics of both crowns were not statistically significant and it can be said that the patients’ aesthetic satisfaction was the same for both crowns. View Full-Text
Keywords: lithium-disilicate ceramic; IPS e.max; monolithic; veneered; CAD/CAM; reduced-thickness; survival; aesthetics lithium-disilicate ceramic; IPS e.max; monolithic; veneered; CAD/CAM; reduced-thickness; survival; aesthetics
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Špehar, D.; Jakovac, M. Clinical Evaluation of Reduced-Thickness Monolithic Lithium-Disilicate Crowns: One-Year Follow-Up Results. Processes 2021, 9, 2119. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9122119

AMA Style

Špehar D, Jakovac M. Clinical Evaluation of Reduced-Thickness Monolithic Lithium-Disilicate Crowns: One-Year Follow-Up Results. Processes. 2021; 9(12):2119. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9122119

Chicago/Turabian Style

Špehar, Davor, and Marko Jakovac. 2021. "Clinical Evaluation of Reduced-Thickness Monolithic Lithium-Disilicate Crowns: One-Year Follow-Up Results" Processes 9, no. 12: 2119. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9122119

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop