Survival of Dicor glass-ceramic dental restorations over 16 years. Part III: effect of luting agent and tooth or tooth-substitute core structure.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM The influence of different types of restorative design features on the long-term survival of Dicor glass-ceramic restorations is only partially understood. PURPOSE This study examined the effect of different types of luting agents and preparation core structures on the survival of Dicor glass-ceramic restorations functioning in vivo. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 1444 Dicor glass-ceramic restorations were placed on the teeth of 417 adults. Failure was defined as a restoration that required remake because of material fracture. The survival of restorations of different types, with different luting agents and preparation core structures, was described with Kaplan-Meier survival functions. The significance of differences in survival between different tooth or tooth-substitute preparation core structures and different luting agents was determined with the log-rank test. RESULTS The probability of survival of a typical acid-etched Dicor restoration luted to gold preparation core structures was 91% at 16 years compared with 75% for dentin preparation core structures (P<.01). The survival of acid-etched Dicor restorations luted to dentin preparations was significantly better than nonacid-etched restorations luted to dentin. Acid-etched Dicor restorations luted with resin composite exhibited a more favorable survival function than those luted with glass ionomer (P<.01) and zinc phosphate (P<.05). Differences between restorations luted with glass ionomer or zinc phosphate agents were not significant. CONCLUSION Acid-etched Dicor restorations luted to gold preparation core structures exhibited significantly better intraoral survival than restorations luted to dentin. Acid-etched Dicor restorations survived better than nonacid-etched restorations when luted to dentin preparations. Acid-etched Dicor restorations luted with resin composite exhibited more favorable survivor functions than restorations luted with glass ionomer or zinc phosphate agents.

[1]  D. Watts,et al.  Fracture resistance of teeth restored with dentin-bonded crowns. , 1994, Quintessence international.

[2]  K A Malament,et al.  Survival of Dicor glass-ceramic dental restorations over 14 years. Part II: effect of thickness of Dicor material and design of tooth preparation. , 1999, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[3]  H. T. Shillingburg,et al.  Effect of luting media on the compressive strengths of two types of all-ceramic crown. , 1993, Quintessence International.

[4]  S. Rosenstiel,et al.  Apparent fracture toughness of all-ceramic crown systems. , 1989, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[5]  R. Baez,et al.  Effect of acid etching on the flexural strength of a feldspathic porcelain and a castable glass ceramic. , 1993, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[6]  L. Pröbster,et al.  The influence of different cementation modes on the fracture resistance of feldspathic ceramic crowns. , 1997, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[7]  J. Meyer,et al.  Effect of cement film thickness on the fracture resistance of a machinable glass-ceramic. , 1994, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[8]  E. D. Rekow,et al.  Mechanical Characterization of Dental Ceramics by Hertzian Contacts , 1998, Journal of dental research.

[9]  S. Campbell,et al.  Fracture-surface analysis of dental ceramics. , 1989, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[10]  Scherrer Ss,et al.  The fracture resistance of all-ceramic crowns on supporting structures with different elastic moduli. , 1993 .

[11]  R. Giordano,et al.  Fracture surface analysis of dental ceramics: clinically failed restorations. , 1990, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[12]  K J Anusavice,et al.  Tensile stress in glass-ceramic crowns: effect of flaws and cement voids. , 1992, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[13]  L. F. Bailey,et al.  DICOR® Surface Treatments for Enhanced Bonding , 1988, Journal of dentistry research.

[14]  J R Kelly,et al.  Clinically relevant approach to failure testing of all-ceramic restorations. , 1999, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[15]  W. Barkmeier,et al.  Shear bond strength of Dicor using resin adhesive systems and light activated cement. , 1991, Journal of esthetic dentistry.

[16]  R R Seghi,et al.  Relative flexural strength of six new ceramic materials. , 1995, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[17]  M. Yoshinari,et al.  Fracture strength of all-ceramic crowns. , 1994, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[18]  K A Malament,et al.  Survival of Dicor glass-ceramic dental restorations over 14 years: Part I. Survival of Dicor complete coverage restorations and effect of internal surface acid etching, tooth position, gender, and age. , 1999, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[19]  H. Nemetz,et al.  A comparison of the shear bond strength between two composite resins and two etched ceramic materials. , 1988, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[20]  K. Anusavice,et al.  Fracture Surface Characterization of Clinically Failed All-ceramic Crowns , 1994, Journal of dental research.

[21]  A. Schulman,et al.  A compressive strength study of complete ceramic crowns. Part II. , 1991, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[22]  A. Schulman,et al.  A compressive strength study of an all-ceramic crown. , 1985, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[23]  J. Y. Thompson,et al.  Microscopic and energy dipersive x-ray analysis of surface adaptation of dental cements to dental ceramic surfaces. , 1998, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[24]  J. Drummond,et al.  Physiological aging of an all-ceramic restorative material. , 1991, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.