Publication:
Longevity and risk factors of CAD-CAM manufactured implant-supported all-ceramic crowns - A prospective, multi-center, practice-based cohort study.

cris.virtual.author-orcid0000-0002-8079-0860
cris.virtualsource.author-orcid3575892b-0dc5-4c5b-a37e-db62c698d4f3
cris.virtualsource.author-orcidccbe3e28-8f39-47a0-82e0-675235ec921a
cris.virtualsource.author-orcidd19ddfc9-dae4-4d9e-9c4e-af7768aa59b5
cris.virtualsource.author-orcidf32a2cb1-9679-4acd-9e86-2065b98dff4a
dc.contributor.authorWierichs, R J
dc.contributor.authorKramer, E J
dc.contributor.authorReiss, B
dc.contributor.authorRoccuzzo, Andrea
dc.contributor.authorRaabe, Clemens
dc.contributor.authorYilmaz, B
dc.contributor.authorAbou-Ayash, S
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-04T09:53:49Z
dc.date.available2024-11-04T09:53:49Z
dc.date.issued2024-11
dc.description.abstractObjectives The aim of this prospective, multi-center, practice-based cohort study was to analyze factors associated with the success of implant supported all-ceramic single-unit crowns, made by computer-aided-design/computer-aided-manufacturing (CAD-CAM).Methods All-ceramic crowns placed in a private practice-based research network (Ceramic Success Analysis, AG Keramik) were analyzed. Data from 567patients with CAD-CAM implant supported all-ceramic crowns placed between 2008-2023 by 54dentists were evaluated. Firstly, all crowns with at least one follow-up control were included (n = 907). Secondly, all crowns being followed up for ≥ 5years and all failures were included (n = 151). At the latest follow-up visit, crowns were considered as successful (not failed) if they were still in function without the need for additional therapy. Multi-level Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the association between a range of predictors and time of success.Results Within a mean follow-up period (SD) of 2.5 (2)years (first scenario) and 6.2 (1.2)years (second scenario) [maximum:12years], 27crowns failed (annual failure rate [AFR]:0.74 %). The main failure types were decementation, (n = 11), fracture of the ceramic (n = 4) or Ti-Base (n = 4). In 5-year-scenario, crowns fabricated in the laboratory had 26times lower failure rate than those fabricated chairside (95 %CI:0.0-0.7;p = 0.038). Furthermore, the use of a silane (HR:0.051;95 %CI:0.0-0.5;p = 0.014) and etching of the ceramic (HR:0.053;95 %CI:0.0-0.8;p = 0.035) resulted in a significantly higher risk for failure than their non-use.Significance For CAD-CAM manufactured implant supported all-ceramic crowns, high success rates were found in up to 12-year evaluation. Furthermore, after 5years, no patient-or implant-level factors, but operative-level factor (i.e.fabrication method, use of silane/etching) were significantly associated with failure. The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00020271).
dc.description.numberOfPages8
dc.description.sponsorshipSchool of Dental Medicine, Clinic of Preventive, Restorative and Pediatric Dentistry
dc.description.sponsorshipSchool of Dental Medicine, Clinic of Periodontology
dc.description.sponsorshipSchool of Dental Medicine, Clinic of Oral Surgery and Stomatology
dc.description.sponsorshipSchool of Dental Medicine, Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology
dc.identifier.doi10.48620/75976
dc.identifier.pmid39322444
dc.identifier.publisherDOI10.1016/j.dental.2024.09.008
dc.identifier.urihttps://boris-portal.unibe.ch/handle/20.500.12422/125279
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.relation.ispartofDental Materials
dc.relation.issn0109-5641
dc.subjectCAD/CAM
dc.subjectCeramics
dc.subjectClinical Study
dc.subjectDental Restoration Failure
dc.subjectDental implants
dc.subjectLongevity
dc.subjectProspective Studies
dc.subjectRisk Factors
dc.subjectSuccess analysis
dc.subject.ddc600 - Technology::610 - Medicine & health
dc.titleLongevity and risk factors of CAD-CAM manufactured implant-supported all-ceramic crowns - A prospective, multi-center, practice-based cohort study.
dc.typearticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
oaire.citation.endPage1969
oaire.citation.issue11
oaire.citation.startPage1962
oaire.citation.volume40
oairecerif.author.affiliationSchool of Dental Medicine, Clinic of Preventive, Restorative and Pediatric Dentistry
oairecerif.author.affiliationSchool of Dental Medicine, Clinic of Periodontology
oairecerif.author.affiliationSchool of Dental Medicine, Clinic of Oral Surgery and Stomatology
oairecerif.author.affiliationSchool of Dental Medicine, Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology
oairecerif.author.affiliationSchool of Dental Medicine, Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology
oairecerif.author.affiliation2School of Dental Medicine, Clinic of Preventive, Restorative and Pediatric Dentistry
unibe.contributor.correspondingWierichs, R J
unibe.contributor.rolecorresponding author
unibe.contributor.roleauthor
unibe.contributor.roleauthor
unibe.contributor.roleauthor
unibe.contributor.roleauthor
unibe.contributor.roleauthor
unibe.contributor.roleauthor
unibe.corresponding.affiliationSchool of Dental Medicine, Clinic of Preventive, Restorative and Pediatric Dentistry
unibe.description.ispublishedpub
unibe.refereedtrue
unibe.subtype.articlejournal

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Name:
1-s2.0-S0109564124002793-main.pdf
Size:
1.44 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
File Type:
text
License:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Content:
published

Collections