Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 23, 2025
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
A multicenter randomized controlled clinical pilot study of buccally micro-veneered lithium-disilicate and zirconia
Malin Strasding1, Stefan Paul Hicklin2, Ana Todorovic3
1Division of Fixed Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, University Clinic of Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva 4, Switzerland.
Objectives:
To investigate survival rates, technical and biologic outcomes of buccally micro-veneered all-ceramic single implant crowns.
Material And Methods:
Sixty subjects randomly received immediately or early placed implants. Crowns out of lithium-disilicate (n = 30) and zirconia-ceramic (n = 30) were bonded to titanium-base-abutments. Restorations were inspected at baseline (BL) and during follow-up visits (6, 12 months). Technical and biologic parameters were recorded. Data were analysed descriptively. Differences between groups were tested with Student's t-test. Paired T-test was used when comparing data from the same implant or tooth over time. Linear model repeated measures were used to test differences between materials over time. Differences in counts were evaluated using Pearson Chi-square test. The level of significance was at p < .05.
Results:
After a mean observation time of 13.2 ± 2.4 months, 54 restorations were re-examined. The implant survival rate was 98.3%, and the restoration survival rate was 100%. One early implant failure occurred. Two minor chippings occurred in lithium-disilicate restorations. No chippings or fractures occurred in any zirconia restorations at 1 year (0%). The technical complication rate was 3.7%, with 7.7% complications among the lithium-disilicate restorations and no differences between the two materials (p = .558). At 1-year follow-up, mean Bleeding on Probing (BOP) was higher at implants (0.27 ± 0.3) than adjacent teeth (0.17 ± 0.18) (p = .046) with no differences between materials (p = .36). Differences in pocket probing depth (PPD) between implants and adjacent teeth were significant (p < .01). Jemt Index improved significantly from BL to 1-y-follow-up (p < .001).
Conclusions:
Preliminary results were good, suggesting that the ceramic type does not impact technical and biologic parameters.
