CAD/CAM Zirconia vs. slip-cast glass-infiltrated Alumina/Zirconia all-ceramic crowns: 2-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial

Abstract

The aim of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to compare the early clinical outcome of slip-cast glass-infiltrated Alumina/Zirconia and CAD/CAM Zirconia all-ceramic crowns. A total of 30 InCeram® Zirconia and Cercon® Zirconia crowns were fabricated and cemented with a glass ionomer cement in 20 patients. At baseline, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year recall appointments, Californian Dental Association (CDA) quality evaluation system was used to evaluate the prosthetic replacements, and plaque and gingival index scores were used to explore the periodontal outcome of the treatments. No clinical sign of marginal discoloration, persistent pain and secondary caries was detected in any of the restorations. All InCeram® Zirconia crowns survived during the 2-year period, although one nonvital tooth experienced root fracture coupled with the fracture of the veneering porcelain of the restoration. One Cercon® Zirconia restoration fractured and was replaced. According to the CDA criteria, marginal integrity was rated excellent for InCeram® Zirconia (73%) and Cercon® Zirconia (80%) restorations, respectively. Slight color mismatch rate was higher for InCeram® Zirconia restorations (66%) than Cercon® Zirconia (26%) restorations. Plaque and gingival index scores were mostly zero and almost constant over time. Time-dependent changes in plaque and gingival index scores within and between groups were statistically similar (p>0.05). This clinical study demonstrates that single-tooth InCeram® Zirconia and Cercon® Zirconia crowns have comparable early clinical outcome, both seem as acceptable treatment modalities, and most importantly, all-ceramic alumina crowns strengthened by 25% zirconia can sufficiently withstand functional load in the posterior zone.

Keywords

• Randomized Controlled trial
• Aluminum oxide
• Glass ionomer cements
• Crowns
• Dental ceramics