JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Long-term performance of posterior InCeram Alumina crowns cemented with different luting agents: a prospective, randomized clinical split-mouth study over 5 years.

OBJECTIVES: This prospective, randomized clinical split-mouth study investigated the 5-year performance of InCeram Alumina posterior crowns cemented with three different luting cements. 4-META- and MDP-based cements were used for adhesive luting. Glass ionomer cement served as control.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty patients were treated with 149 (n = 62 Panavia F/MDP; n = 59 SuperBond-C&B/4-META; n = 28 Ketac Cem/glass ionomer) InCeram Alumina crowns on vital molars and premolars in a comparable position. Follow-up examinations were performed annually up to 5 years after crown placement using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis comprised secondary caries, clinically unacceptable fractures, root canal treatment and debonding. Kaplan-Meier success rate included restorations with minimal crevices, tolerable color deviations (<1 Vitashade), and clinically acceptable fractures. Logistic regression models with a random intercept were fitted.

RESULTS: The 5-year Kaplan-Meier survival probabilities were: SuperBond-C&B 88.7 %, Panavia F 82.8 %, Ketac Cem 80.1 % with no significant difference (p = .813). Endodontical treatment was carried out on 7.4 % of all abutment teeth, and 5.4 % revealed secondary caries. Unacceptable ceramic fractures were observed in 7.4 %. Debonding was a rare complication (1.3 %). The 5 year Kaplan-Meier success rate was 91.6 % for SuperBond-C&B-, 87.4 % for Ketac Cem- and 86.3 % for Panavia F-bonded restorations with no significant difference (p = .624). All cement types showed significant marginal deterioration over time (p < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS: Posterior InCeram Alumina crowns showed acceptable long-term survival and success rates independent of luting agent used. Ceramic fractures, endodontical treatments and secondary caries were the most frequent failures.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Glass-infiltrated Alumina crowns in combination with adhesive as well as conventional cementation can be considered as a reliable treatment option in posterior teeth.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app