A prospective, multi-center, practice-based cohort study on all-ceramic crowns
•For all-ceramic crowns high success rates (95%) could be found after up to 15years.•Hybrid ceramics showed a 3.2times higher failure rate than feldspathic porcelain.•Single-step adhesives showed 2.2times higher failure rate than multi-step adhesives.•After the use of a composite liner the failure r...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Dental materials 2021-08, Vol.37 (8), p.1273-1282 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1282 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | 1273 |
| container_title | Dental materials |
| container_volume | 37 |
| creator | Wierichs, R.J. Kramer, E.J. Reiss, B. Schwendicke, F. Krois, J. Meyer-Lueckel, H. Wolf, T.G. |
| description | •For all-ceramic crowns high success rates (95%) could be found after up to 15years.•Hybrid ceramics showed a 3.2times higher failure rate than feldspathic porcelain.•Single-step adhesives showed 2.2times higher failure rate than multi-step adhesives.•After the use of a composite liner the failure rate increased.•The use of oxygen-blocking gels & sono abrasion techniques increased failure rates.
The aim of this prospective, multi-center, practice-based cohort study was to analyze factors associated with the success of all-ceramic crowns.
All-ceramic crowns placed in a practice-based research network ([Ceramic Success Analysis, AG Keramik) were analyzed. Data from 1254 patients with (mostly in-office CAD/CAM) all-ceramic crowns placed by 101 dentists being followed up for more than 5 years were evaluated. At the last follow-up visit crowns were considered as successful (not failed) if they were sufficient, whereas crowns were considered as survived (not lost) if they were still in function. Multi-level Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the association between a range of predictors and time of success or survival.
Within a mean follow-up period (SD) of 7.2(2)years [maximum:15years] 776 crowns were considered successful (annual failure rate[AFR]:8.4%) and 1041 crowns survived (AFR:4.9%). The presence of a post in endodontically treated teeth resulted in a risk for failure 2.7 times lower than that of restorations without a post (95%CI:1.4–5.0;p = 0.002). Regarding the restorative material and adhesive technique, hybrid composite ceramics and single-step adhesives showed a 3.4 and 2.2 times higher failure rate than feldspathic porcelain and multi-step adhesives, respectively (p < 0.001). Use of an oxygen-blocking gel as well as an EVA instrument resulted in a 1.5–1.8 times higher failure rate than their non-use (p ≤ 0.001).
After up to 15years AFR were rather high for all-ceramic crowns. Operative factors, but no patient- or tooth-level factors were significantly associated with failure.
The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00020271). |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.dental.2021.04.005 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2525651581</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0109564121001573</els_id><sourcerecordid>2525651581</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-bfd9df900e0717728cd070ca7d0b11cd1b2bb56d0f9c57ddd5e916a1dc12e9743</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LJDEQhoMoOo7-g0UavHiYbqsync7ksiDiFwx62T2HdFLNZuiP2aRb8d-bYXQPe_AUqDz1VtXD2A-EAgGr603hqB9NW3DgWEBZAIgDNsOVVDmAkodsBggqF1WJJ-w0xg0AlFzhMTtZLpXkoNSMPd9k2zDELdnRv9Ii66Z29LlNyRQW6cukuqW8NpFcZoc_QxizOE7uPRv6zLRtQoPpvM1sGN76eMaOGtNGOv985-z3_d2v28d8_fLwdHuzzm25rMa8bpxyjQIgkCglX1kHEqyRDmpE67DmdS0qB42yQjrnBCmsDDqLnJQsl3N2tc9Ny_-dKI6689FS25qehilqLrioBIoVJvTyP3QzTKFP2yWqQoFSlDuq3FPpjhgDNXobfGfCu0bQO996o_e-9c63hlIn36nt4jN8qjty_5q-BCfg5x6gZOPVU9DReuotOR-Sc-0G__2EDx4_kpY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2561517541</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A prospective, multi-center, practice-based cohort study on all-ceramic crowns</title><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Wierichs, R.J. ; Kramer, E.J. ; Reiss, B. ; Schwendicke, F. ; Krois, J. ; Meyer-Lueckel, H. ; Wolf, T.G.</creator><creatorcontrib>Wierichs, R.J. ; Kramer, E.J. ; Reiss, B. ; Schwendicke, F. ; Krois, J. ; Meyer-Lueckel, H. ; Wolf, T.G.</creatorcontrib><description>•For all-ceramic crowns high success rates (95%) could be found after up to 15years.•Hybrid ceramics showed a 3.2times higher failure rate than feldspathic porcelain.•Single-step adhesives showed 2.2times higher failure rate than multi-step adhesives.•After the use of a composite liner the failure rate increased.•The use of oxygen-blocking gels & sono abrasion techniques increased failure rates.
The aim of this prospective, multi-center, practice-based cohort study was to analyze factors associated with the success of all-ceramic crowns.
All-ceramic crowns placed in a practice-based research network ([Ceramic Success Analysis, AG Keramik) were analyzed. Data from 1254 patients with (mostly in-office CAD/CAM) all-ceramic crowns placed by 101 dentists being followed up for more than 5 years were evaluated. At the last follow-up visit crowns were considered as successful (not failed) if they were sufficient, whereas crowns were considered as survived (not lost) if they were still in function. Multi-level Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the association between a range of predictors and time of success or survival.
Within a mean follow-up period (SD) of 7.2(2)years [maximum:15years] 776 crowns were considered successful (annual failure rate[AFR]:8.4%) and 1041 crowns survived (AFR:4.9%). The presence of a post in endodontically treated teeth resulted in a risk for failure 2.7 times lower than that of restorations without a post (95%CI:1.4–5.0;p = 0.002). Regarding the restorative material and adhesive technique, hybrid composite ceramics and single-step adhesives showed a 3.4 and 2.2 times higher failure rate than feldspathic porcelain and multi-step adhesives, respectively (p < 0.001). Use of an oxygen-blocking gel as well as an EVA instrument resulted in a 1.5–1.8 times higher failure rate than their non-use (p ≤ 0.001).
After up to 15years AFR were rather high for all-ceramic crowns. Operative factors, but no patient- or tooth-level factors were significantly associated with failure.
The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00020271).</description><identifier>ISSN: 0109-5641</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-0097</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2021.04.005</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33972099</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>(MESH): adhesives ; Adhesives ; CAD/CAM ; Ceramics ; Clinical study ; Cohort analysis ; Composite materials ; Dental cement ; Dental crowns ; Dental restoration failure ; Dental restorative materials ; Dentistry ; Failure rates ; Hybrid composites ; Longevity ; Porcelain ; Prospective studies ; Risk factors ; Statistical models ; Success analysis ; Survival ; Teeth</subject><ispartof>Dental materials, 2021-08, Vol.37 (8), p.1273-1282</ispartof><rights>2021 The Author(s)</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier BV Aug 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-bfd9df900e0717728cd070ca7d0b11cd1b2bb56d0f9c57ddd5e916a1dc12e9743</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-bfd9df900e0717728cd070ca7d0b11cd1b2bb56d0f9c57ddd5e916a1dc12e9743</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4044-1893 ; 0000-0002-4239-199X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2021.04.005$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33972099$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wierichs, R.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kramer, E.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reiss, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schwendicke, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krois, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meyer-Lueckel, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wolf, T.G.</creatorcontrib><title>A prospective, multi-center, practice-based cohort study on all-ceramic crowns</title><title>Dental materials</title><addtitle>Dent Mater</addtitle><description>•For all-ceramic crowns high success rates (95%) could be found after up to 15years.•Hybrid ceramics showed a 3.2times higher failure rate than feldspathic porcelain.•Single-step adhesives showed 2.2times higher failure rate than multi-step adhesives.•After the use of a composite liner the failure rate increased.•The use of oxygen-blocking gels & sono abrasion techniques increased failure rates.
The aim of this prospective, multi-center, practice-based cohort study was to analyze factors associated with the success of all-ceramic crowns.
All-ceramic crowns placed in a practice-based research network ([Ceramic Success Analysis, AG Keramik) were analyzed. Data from 1254 patients with (mostly in-office CAD/CAM) all-ceramic crowns placed by 101 dentists being followed up for more than 5 years were evaluated. At the last follow-up visit crowns were considered as successful (not failed) if they were sufficient, whereas crowns were considered as survived (not lost) if they were still in function. Multi-level Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the association between a range of predictors and time of success or survival.
Within a mean follow-up period (SD) of 7.2(2)years [maximum:15years] 776 crowns were considered successful (annual failure rate[AFR]:8.4%) and 1041 crowns survived (AFR:4.9%). The presence of a post in endodontically treated teeth resulted in a risk for failure 2.7 times lower than that of restorations without a post (95%CI:1.4–5.0;p = 0.002). Regarding the restorative material and adhesive technique, hybrid composite ceramics and single-step adhesives showed a 3.4 and 2.2 times higher failure rate than feldspathic porcelain and multi-step adhesives, respectively (p < 0.001). Use of an oxygen-blocking gel as well as an EVA instrument resulted in a 1.5–1.8 times higher failure rate than their non-use (p ≤ 0.001).
After up to 15years AFR were rather high for all-ceramic crowns. Operative factors, but no patient- or tooth-level factors were significantly associated with failure.
The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00020271).</description><subject>(MESH): adhesives</subject><subject>Adhesives</subject><subject>CAD/CAM</subject><subject>Ceramics</subject><subject>Clinical study</subject><subject>Cohort analysis</subject><subject>Composite materials</subject><subject>Dental cement</subject><subject>Dental crowns</subject><subject>Dental restoration failure</subject><subject>Dental restorative materials</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Failure rates</subject><subject>Hybrid composites</subject><subject>Longevity</subject><subject>Porcelain</subject><subject>Prospective studies</subject><subject>Risk factors</subject><subject>Statistical models</subject><subject>Success analysis</subject><subject>Survival</subject><subject>Teeth</subject><issn>0109-5641</issn><issn>1879-0097</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kE1LJDEQhoMoOo7-g0UavHiYbqsync7ksiDiFwx62T2HdFLNZuiP2aRb8d-bYXQPe_AUqDz1VtXD2A-EAgGr603hqB9NW3DgWEBZAIgDNsOVVDmAkodsBggqF1WJJ-w0xg0AlFzhMTtZLpXkoNSMPd9k2zDELdnRv9Ii66Z29LlNyRQW6cukuqW8NpFcZoc_QxizOE7uPRv6zLRtQoPpvM1sGN76eMaOGtNGOv985-z3_d2v28d8_fLwdHuzzm25rMa8bpxyjQIgkCglX1kHEqyRDmpE67DmdS0qB42yQjrnBCmsDDqLnJQsl3N2tc9Ny_-dKI6689FS25qehilqLrioBIoVJvTyP3QzTKFP2yWqQoFSlDuq3FPpjhgDNXobfGfCu0bQO996o_e-9c63hlIn36nt4jN8qjty_5q-BCfg5x6gZOPVU9DReuotOR-Sc-0G__2EDx4_kpY</recordid><startdate>20210801</startdate><enddate>20210801</enddate><creator>Wierichs, R.J.</creator><creator>Kramer, E.J.</creator><creator>Reiss, B.</creator><creator>Schwendicke, F.</creator><creator>Krois, J.</creator><creator>Meyer-Lueckel, H.</creator><creator>Wolf, T.G.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier BV</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QF</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7QQ</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7SE</scope><scope>7SP</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>H8G</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4044-1893</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4239-199X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210801</creationdate><title>A prospective, multi-center, practice-based cohort study on all-ceramic crowns</title><author>Wierichs, R.J. ; Kramer, E.J. ; Reiss, B. ; Schwendicke, F. ; Krois, J. ; Meyer-Lueckel, H. ; Wolf, T.G.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-bfd9df900e0717728cd070ca7d0b11cd1b2bb56d0f9c57ddd5e916a1dc12e9743</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>(MESH): adhesives</topic><topic>Adhesives</topic><topic>CAD/CAM</topic><topic>Ceramics</topic><topic>Clinical study</topic><topic>Cohort analysis</topic><topic>Composite materials</topic><topic>Dental cement</topic><topic>Dental crowns</topic><topic>Dental restoration failure</topic><topic>Dental restorative materials</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Failure rates</topic><topic>Hybrid composites</topic><topic>Longevity</topic><topic>Porcelain</topic><topic>Prospective studies</topic><topic>Risk factors</topic><topic>Statistical models</topic><topic>Success analysis</topic><topic>Survival</topic><topic>Teeth</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wierichs, R.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kramer, E.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reiss, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schwendicke, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krois, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meyer-Lueckel, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wolf, T.G.</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aluminium Industry Abstracts</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Ceramic Abstracts</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Corrosion Abstracts</collection><collection>Electronics & Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology & Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Copper Technical Reference Library</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Dental materials</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wierichs, R.J.</au><au>Kramer, E.J.</au><au>Reiss, B.</au><au>Schwendicke, F.</au><au>Krois, J.</au><au>Meyer-Lueckel, H.</au><au>Wolf, T.G.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A prospective, multi-center, practice-based cohort study on all-ceramic crowns</atitle><jtitle>Dental materials</jtitle><addtitle>Dent Mater</addtitle><date>2021-08-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>37</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>1273</spage><epage>1282</epage><pages>1273-1282</pages><issn>0109-5641</issn><eissn>1879-0097</eissn><abstract>•For all-ceramic crowns high success rates (95%) could be found after up to 15years.•Hybrid ceramics showed a 3.2times higher failure rate than feldspathic porcelain.•Single-step adhesives showed 2.2times higher failure rate than multi-step adhesives.•After the use of a composite liner the failure rate increased.•The use of oxygen-blocking gels & sono abrasion techniques increased failure rates.
The aim of this prospective, multi-center, practice-based cohort study was to analyze factors associated with the success of all-ceramic crowns.
All-ceramic crowns placed in a practice-based research network ([Ceramic Success Analysis, AG Keramik) were analyzed. Data from 1254 patients with (mostly in-office CAD/CAM) all-ceramic crowns placed by 101 dentists being followed up for more than 5 years were evaluated. At the last follow-up visit crowns were considered as successful (not failed) if they were sufficient, whereas crowns were considered as survived (not lost) if they were still in function. Multi-level Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the association between a range of predictors and time of success or survival.
Within a mean follow-up period (SD) of 7.2(2)years [maximum:15years] 776 crowns were considered successful (annual failure rate[AFR]:8.4%) and 1041 crowns survived (AFR:4.9%). The presence of a post in endodontically treated teeth resulted in a risk for failure 2.7 times lower than that of restorations without a post (95%CI:1.4–5.0;p = 0.002). Regarding the restorative material and adhesive technique, hybrid composite ceramics and single-step adhesives showed a 3.4 and 2.2 times higher failure rate than feldspathic porcelain and multi-step adhesives, respectively (p < 0.001). Use of an oxygen-blocking gel as well as an EVA instrument resulted in a 1.5–1.8 times higher failure rate than their non-use (p ≤ 0.001).
After up to 15years AFR were rather high for all-ceramic crowns. Operative factors, but no patient- or tooth-level factors were significantly associated with failure.
The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00020271).</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>33972099</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.dental.2021.04.005</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4044-1893</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4239-199X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0109-5641 |
| ispartof | Dental materials, 2021-08, Vol.37 (8), p.1273-1282 |
| issn | 0109-5641 1879-0097 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2525651581 |
| source | Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
| subjects | (MESH): adhesives Adhesives CAD/CAM Ceramics Clinical study Cohort analysis Composite materials Dental cement Dental crowns Dental restoration failure Dental restorative materials Dentistry Failure rates Hybrid composites Longevity Porcelain Prospective studies Risk factors Statistical models Success analysis Survival Teeth |
| title | A prospective, multi-center, practice-based cohort study on all-ceramic crowns |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T20%3A31%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20prospective,%20multi-center,%20practice-based%20cohort%20study%20on%20all-ceramic%20crowns&rft.jtitle=Dental%20materials&rft.au=Wierichs,%20R.J.&rft.date=2021-08-01&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1273&rft.epage=1282&rft.pages=1273-1282&rft.issn=0109-5641&rft.eissn=1879-0097&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.dental.2021.04.005&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2525651581%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2561517541&rft_id=info:pmid/33972099&rft_els_id=S0109564121001573&rfr_iscdi=true |