Abstract
This study retrospectively evaluated the clinical performance of 287 all-ceramic restorations placed during routine patient care in the University setting in the past 7 years. All patients (n = 106) with ceramic inlays or partial ceramic crowns (PCC), placed during 1988-1994 (n = 327) by five experienced dentists were asked to take part in a clinical investigation, and 92 patients with 287 restorations (232 inlays, 55 PCC) agreed to do so. The following ceramics were used: 44 (15.3%) Dicor (Dentsply), 126 (43.9%) IPS-Empress (Ivoclar), 82 (28.7%) Mirage II, 33 (11.5%) Cerec-Vita-Mark 1 (Vita), and 2 (0.7%) Duceram LFC (Ducera) restorations. The restorations were placed using the following luting composites: 73 (25.4%) Dual Cure Luting Cement (Optec), 81 (28.3%) Variolink high viscosity (Ivoclar), 32 (11.1%) Microfill Pontic C (Kulzer), 51 (17.8%) Dual Zement (Ivoclar), 40 (13.9%) Dicor Light Activated Cement (Dentsply), and 10 (3.5%) Vita Cerec Duo Cement (Vita). Restorations were evaluated according to the modified USPHS criteria. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to calculate the probability of survival. Of the 287 restorations 270 (94.2%) were still in function without any need of intervention. Fourteen restorations (4.8%) had failed before starting the clinical investigation, and in three a fracture was found during the investigation. These 17 failed restorations consisted of 14 PCC and 3 ceramic inlays. The results of the clinical investigation revealed 59.2% Alpha-ratings for marginal adaptation. Only one restored tooth showed recurrent caries. The probability of survival (95% confidence interval) for 7 years was 98% (97.99-98.01%) for ceramic inlays and 56% (46-66%) for PCC. Our findings show that ceramic inlays can be regarded as an acceptable alternative to cast gold restorations within the methodological limitations of the present study. For PCC further experience with more recent ceramics is warranted.