Long-term performance of ceramic in/-onlays vs. cast gold partial crowns – a retrospective clinical study

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the long-term clinical performance of ceramic in-/onlays (CIOs) and cast gold partial crowns (CGPCs) in posterior teeth in terms of success, survival, complications (biological, technical) and quality. Material and methods: In a retrospective study, a total of 325 patients were recorded after up to 24.8 years (mean 13.9 ± 3.8 years) having (pre-)molars restored with CIO (Empress I, Ivoclar Vivadent, n = 161) and CGPC (Degunorm, DeguDent, n = 164) by supervised undergraduate students. A total of 296 restorations were assessed clinically and radiologically in healthy and endodontically treated teeth using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Cumulative success and survival rates of the restorations were calculated using Kaplan–Meier estimates. Biological and technical complications were recorded. Status of oral health comprising caries risk and localized periodontitis were assessed. Results: The cumulative success rates of CIOs were 92.1% and of CGPCs 84.2% after mean service times of 14.5 years. The annual failure rates of total service times were 0.5% in teeth restored with CIO (n = 155) and 0.7% in teeth restored with CGPC (n = 163). The cumulative survival rates of CIOs were 93.9% after a mean service time of 15.2 years and decreased to 91.7% after 23.5 years. The cumulative survival rates of CGPCs were 92.6% after a mean service time of 14.9 years and 91.8% after 23.5 years. Complications in CIOs (n = 149) were ceramic fracture (6.7%), secondary caries (4.7%), endodontic complication (2.7%) and tooth fracture (1.3%) compared to CGPCs (n = 147) with endodontic complication (8.8%), secondary caries (4.8%) and decementation (2.0%). Endodontically treated teeth restored with CIO or CGPC revealed significantly less often success compared with corresponding vital teeth (p =.02). CIOs and CGPCs revealed clinically and radiographically good and excellent qualities with 71.8% (107/149) and 68% (100/147) without any significant differences regarding type of restoration. Conclusions: Both CIOs and CGPCs achieved high survival rates up to 24.8 years when performed by supervised undergraduate students. The longevity of the restorations may benefit from the intraoral repair of accessible defects and, in case of pulp infection or necrosis, an adequate endodontic management. Clinical relevance: CIOs and CGPCs made by supervised undergraduate students are proper restoration types in posterior teeth in the long-term. An adequate preparation design, meticulous care in the inserting technique and constant biofilm removal due to proper oral hygiene combined with professional maintenance care are substantial. The clinical long-term performance was mostly limited by ceramic fractures in CIOs and endodontic complications in CGPCs.