Comparison of clinical outcomes between single metal-ceramic and zirconia crowns
Neena L D'Souza1, Emma Ml Jutlah2, Rachel A Deshpande3
1Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Private practice, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.
Statement Of Problem:
Evidence comparing the survival of zirconia crowns with metal-ceramic crowns is sparse. Knowledge of their survival and a comparison of their clinical outcomes would improve clinical decision making.
Purpose:
The purpose of this university-based study was to compare the survival, failures, biological and technical complications encountered with zirconia and metal-ceramic crowns restored and followed up over a similar period.
Material And Methods:
This retrospective chart review consisted of 403 patients treated at the University of Toronto, Faculty of Dentistry, predoctoral dental clinic in whom zirconia (n=209) and metal-ceramic (n=306) crowns were inserted between September 2015 and July 2016 and followed for up to 7 years. Outcome measures included failure, causes for failure, and complications associated with survival. Inferential statistical analysis included the chi-squared test, t test, Mann-Whitney test, Bonferroni-adjusted z-test, Kaplan-Meier survival test, and logistic regression to examine differences between crown types and explore crown failures (α=.05).
Results:
The mean follow-up period was 3.00 years (median 2.58 years). Forty-one (8.0%) crowns had no follow-up, with no difference in follow-up between crown type: metal-ceramic n=23(7.5%), zirconia n=18(8.6%), χ²(1)=0.20, P=.652). Excluding those with no follow-up, the follow-up time between metal-ceramic (mean=3.07, median=2.58) and zirconia (mean=3.54, median=3.32) crowns was statistically similar (P=.052). There were 62 anterior crowns (12.0%) and 453 posterior crowns (88.0%), χ²(1)=22.40, P<.001, with no difference between groups. Overall, 44 crowns (8.5%) failed, 30 (9.8%) metal-ceramic and 14 (6.7%) zirconia, with no statistical difference in proportion of failed crowns between groups (χ²(1)=1.53, P=.216). There were 35 crowns with biological failures (6.8%), 26 (8.5%) in the metal-ceramic and 9 (4.4%) in the zirconia group, with no statistical difference between groups (χ²(1)=3.33, P=.068). Nine crowns had technical failures (1.7%), 4 (1.4%) in the metal-ceramic group and 5 (2.5%) in the zirconia group, with no statistical difference between groups (χ²(1)=0.73, P=.394). Biological (79.5%) rather than technical complications were found to be the most frequent cause of failure, goodness-of-fit χ²(1)=15.36, P<.001. Tooth fracture (50.0%) specifically was found to be the most frequent cause of failure, χ²(3)=21.27, P<.001. The total number of crowns that survived was 471 (91.5%); 276 (90.1%) were metal-ceramic and 195(93.3%) zirconia. The survival time (years) for metal-ceramic was mean=6.26, 95% CI [6.01-6.51] and for zirconia crowns mean=6.54, 95% CI [6.31-6.77]. Of the crowns that survived, 370 (78.6%) had no clinical complications, and 101 (21.4%) crowns demonstrated similar clinical complications, with no statistical differences between groups.
Conclusions:
Within the study follow-up time, the survival of monolithic zirconia and metal-ceramic crowns was 91.5%, with similar clinical complications between groups. Biological complications, especially tooth fracture, were a significantly more frequent complication with both types of crowns.
