Pressable lithium disilicate ceramic versus <scp>CAD</scp>/<scp>CAM</scp> resin composite restorations in patients with moderate to severe tooth wear: Clinical observations up to 13 years
Daniel Edelhoff, Kurt‐Jürgen Erdelt, Bogna Stawarczyk, Anja Liebermann
Abstract
Abstract Objective To report the long‐term clinical survival and failure rates of single‐tooth restorations made of pressable lithium disilicate ceramics (LS 2 ) and CAD/CAM resin composite (RC) by two separate clinical observations. Materials and methods Twenty‐one patients (12 female, nine male) were treated with 436 minimally invasive single‐tooth restorations made of 274 pressed LS 2 ( n = 12; posterior: monolithic IPS e.max Press; anterior: IPS e.max Ceram veneered, Ivoclar) or 162 milled from RC ( n = 9; monolithic exp. CAD/CAM resin composite, Ivoclar). The mean age of patients was 44.1 ± 9.3 years and the mean observation time was 86.2 ± 13.5 months (7.7 ± 1.1 years), with 8.5 ± 2.7 years for LS2 and 6.7 ± 0.5 years for RC. All restorations were observed for technical/biological failures using the modified criteria of the United States Public Health Service (USPHS). Collected data were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier survival analysis and log‐rank test ( α < 0.025). Results The 274 LS 2 restorations showed a survival of 100% and a total failure rate of 5.5%. The 162 RC restorations showed a survival of 100% and a total failure rate of 25.3%. RC restorations exhibited more material fractures ( p = 0.020) and higher discoloration rates ( p < 0.001). Conclusions Pressed LS 2 single‐tooth restorations showed lower long‐term failure rates than restorations made of RC. Clinical significance Despite the limitations of the clinical observations, single‐tooth restorations of both materials can be recommended for permanent use in patients with severe tooth wear.