Moura Dayanne M D, de Araújo Gabriela M, de Araújo Lidya N M, de Vasconcelos Gurgel Bruno C, de Oliveira Dal Piva Amanda M, Ozcan Mutlu, de Assunção E Souza Rodrigo O
Professor, State University of Rio Grande do Norte (UERN), Department of Dentistry, Caicó, RN, Brazil.
Researcher, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Department of Dentistry, Natal, RN, Brazil.
J Prosthet Dent. 2025 Jun;133(6):1484-1494. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.07.016. Epub 2023 Sep 9.
The success rate of monolithic polymer-infiltrated ceramic posterior crowns after 1 year is unclear.
The purpose of this controlled, randomized, and double-blind clinical trial was to evaluate the performance of posterior complete crowns in polymer-infiltrated and lithium disilicate ceramics and to assess the impact of oral rehabilitation on esthetic satisfaction, quality of life, and periodontal health.
A total of 33 crowns were provided in 18 participants allocated to 2 groups: Control (Lithium disilicate-IPS e.max CAD; Ivoclar AG) and Experimental (Polymer-infiltrated ceramic-Vita Enamic; Vita Zahnfabrik). The crowns were evaluated before treatment (T0) and after 1 (T1), 6 (T2), and 12 (T3) months by using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria, visual analog scales (VASs), oral impacts on daily performances (OIDP), and periodontal parameters. Survival analysis was performed by using Kaplan-Meier followed by the log-rank test (α=.05). The OIDP and USPHS data were analyzed descriptively while VASs for esthetic satisfaction and periodontal parameters were statistically evaluated by using the Mann-Whitney Friedman, and Wilcoxon post hoc tests.
For 18 participants with a mean age of 47.2 years, 19 crowns were manufactured in lithium disilicate and 14 in polymer-infiltrated ceramic. The Kaplan-Meier test revealed similar survival rates of 92.5% for polymer-infiltrated ceramic and 94.7% for lithium disilicate (P>.05). The analysis of periodontal parameters revealed a significant increase in the bleeding on probing (BOP) for polymer-infiltrated ceramics (P=.032) but for lithium disilicate, it was not significant (P=.387).
Survival rates between the evaluated materials were not significantly different, with acceptable clinical performance after 1 year of follow-up.
一体化聚合物渗透陶瓷后牙冠1年后的成功率尚不清楚。
本对照、随机、双盲临床试验的目的是评估聚合物渗透陶瓷和二硅酸锂陶瓷后牙全冠的性能，并评估口腔修复对美学满意度、生活质量和牙周健康的影响。
18名参与者共制作了33个牙冠，分为2组：对照组（二硅酸锂-IPS e.max CAD；义获嘉伟瓦登特公司）和试验组（聚合物渗透陶瓷-Vita Enamic；维他齿科集团）。在治疗前（T0）以及治疗后1个月（T1）、6个月（T2）和12个月（T3），采用改良的美国公共卫生服务（USPHS）标准、视觉模拟量表（VAS）、口腔日常表现影响（OIDP）和牙周参数对牙冠进行评估。采用Kaplan-Meier法进行生存分析，随后进行对数秩检验（α=0.05）。对OIDP和USPHS数据进行描述性分析，而对美学满意度和牙周参数的VAS数据采用Mann-Whitney Friedman检验和Wilcoxon事后检验进行统计学评估。
18名平均年龄为47.2岁的参与者中，制作了19个二硅酸锂牙冠和14个聚合物渗透陶瓷牙冠。Kaplan-Meier检验显示，聚合物渗透陶瓷的生存率为92.5%，二硅酸锂为94.7%，两者相似（P>0.05）。牙周参数分析显示，聚合物渗透陶瓷的探诊出血（BOP）有显著增加（P=0.032），而二硅酸锂则无显著变化（P=0.387）。
评估材料之间的生存率无显著差异，随访1年后临床性能可接受。
