Fracture rate of monolithic zirconia restorations up to 5 years: A dental laboratory survey
Available online 11 May 2016
Abstract
Statement of problem
The
demand for ceramic restorations has increased over the past years
because of their esthetic properties and the high cost of noble metals.
However, the lack of long-term clinical studies and the difficulty of
interpreting in vitro studies have placed the durability of ceramic
restorations in doubt.
Purpose
The
purpose of this study was to determine the failure rate of monolithic
zirconia restorations due to fracture up to 5 years of clinical
performance.
Material and methods
Data
were collected over 5 years from 2 commercial dental laboratories.
Restorations that were returned to the laboratory for remake because of
catastrophic failure (fracture) were identified and included.
Restorations were categorized as anterior or posterior. Each category
was further divided into complete-coverage single crowns (SCs) and
multiple-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Fracture rates were
compared and analyzed using a chi-square test (α=.05).
Results
A
total of 39 827 restoration records were reviewed and included 3731
anterior restorations (1952 SC; 1799 FDP) and 36 096 posterior
restorations (29 808 SC; 6288 FDP). The overall fracture rate of up to 5
years for all restorations (anterior and posterior) was 1.09%. Fracture
rates were 2.06% for all anterior restorations and 0.99% for all
posterior restorations. Fracture rates were 0.97% for anterior SCs and
0.69% for posterior SCs, and the combined fracture rate (anterior and
posterior) was 0.71%. For FDPs, 3.26% restorations fractured anteriorly
and 2.42% fractured posteriorly, and the combined fracture rate
(anterior and posterior) was 2.60%.
Conclusion
Within
the relative short-term evaluation of 5 years, restorations fabricated
from monolithic zirconia material displayed relatively low fracture
rates. Anterior restorations fractured at a slightly higher rate than
posterior restorations, and FDPs fractured at a rate double that of SCs.
Comments