Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 22, 2025
An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
Published on: February 10, 2014
Clinical performance of CAD-CAM crowns provided by predoctoral students at the University of Toronto
Ahmed M Aziz1, Omar El-Mowafy2, Howard C Tenenbaum3
1Assistant Professor, Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE.
Statement Of Problem:
The clinical success of monolithic lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (LDGC) crowns manufactured with computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technology provided by predoctoral students has not been fully investigated.
Purpose:
The purpose of this retrospective clinical study was to evaluate the performance of laboratory-fabricated monolithic posterior LDGC CAD-CAM crowns provided by predoctoral students at the University of Toronto. Specific patient- and provider-related factors were also investigated.
Material And Methods:
A sample of posterior LDGC CAD-CAM crowns (IPS e.max) provided by predoctoral students was evaluated. Crown preparations were made according to specific criteria, and crowns were milled in an in-house laboratory by using the CEREC Bluecam system. The crowns were cemented with Rely-X Unicem (3M ESPE) and Calibra Universal (Dentsply Sirona) resin cements. Clinical assessments of the crowns and supporting periodontal structures were performed following the modified California Dental Association (CDA) criteria. Intraoral photographs and periapical and bitewing radiographs were obtained for further assessment by 2 evaluators. Descriptive statistics, McNemar, t test, log rank (Mantel-Cox) tests, Pearson chi-squared tests, simple logistic regression, odds ratios, and Kaplan Meier survival analyses were performed (α=.05).
Results:
A total of 189 patients receiving 210 crowns (108 premolar and 102 molar) were examined with a follow-up period of up to 6 years. Altogether, 28 complications were observed (12 technical, 11 biological, and 5 esthetic). No significant association was found between patient age, sex, periodontal condition, tooth type, tooth vitality, cement type, and crown longevity. However, significantly lower survival and success rates were found for mandibular crowns than for maxillary crowns (P=.029). The provider's experience had no significant effect on the clinical performance of LDGC CAD-CAM crowns. The 6-year cumulative survival rate was 93.0%, and the success rate was 86.4%.
Conclusions:
The ease of use of the CAD-CAM system and clinical performance of LDGC suggest that this technology should be used in the dental school setting by predoctoral students.
