Abstract
Cast gold partial crowns (CGPC) and partial ceramic crowns (PCC) are both accepted for restoring posterior teeth with extended lesions today. However, as esthetics in dentistry becomes increasingly important, CGPC are being progressively replaced by PCC. The aim of the present prospective split-mouth study was the comparison of the clinical performance of PCC and CGPC after 3 years of clinical ...
Abstract
Cast gold partial crowns (CGPC) and partial ceramic crowns (PCC) are both accepted for restoring posterior teeth with extended lesions today. However, as esthetics in dentistry becomes increasingly important, CGPC are being progressively replaced by PCC. The aim of the present prospective split-mouth study was the comparison of the clinical performance of PCC and CGPC after 3 years of clinical service. Twenty-eight patients (11 men and 17 women) participated in the 3-year recall with a total of 56 restorations. In each patient, one CGPC (Degulor C) and one PCC (Vita Mark II ceramic/Cerec III) had been inserted at baseline. CGPC were placed using a zinc phosphate cement (Harvard); PCC were adhesively luted (Variolink II/Excite). All restorations were clinically assessed using modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after insertion. Twenty-eight CGPC and 14 PCC were placed in molars, and 14 PCC were placed in premolars. Early data were reported previously under the same study design. After 3 years, the evaluation according to USPHS criteria revealed no statistically significant differences between both types of restorations with the exception of marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration: A statistically significant difference within the PCC group (baseline/3 years) was determined for the criterion marginal adaptation. For the 3-year recall period, overall failure was 0% for CGPC and 6.9% for PCC. At 3 years, PCC meet American Dental Association Acceptance Guidelines criteria for tooth-colored restorative materials for posterior teeth.
Altmetric