Department of Prosthodontics, Geriatric Dentistry and Craniomandibular Disorders, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Aßmannshauser Str. 4-6 14197, Berlin, Germany.
Department of Prosthodontics, Geriatric Dentistry and Craniomandibular Disorders, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Aßmannshauser Str. 4-6 14197, Berlin, Germany.
J Dent. 2024 Mar;142:104832. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.104832. Epub 2024 Jan 10.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the amount of enamel tooth wear induced by different antagonistic ceramic crown materials in the posterior area within a follow-up period up to 24 months in function. A network meta-analysis was performed to assess the effect of the materials on the mean vertical loss (MVL) of the antagonist enamel tooth surface.
Main search terms used in combination: ceramic, dental materials, metal ceramic, tooth wear and dental enamel.
An electronic search was conducted in PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL plus hand-searching.
Eligibility criteria included clinical studies reporting on MVL on antagonist's tooth up to 24 months following the permanent crown placement. From a total of 5697 articles, 7 studies reporting on 261 crowns for 177 subjects with 3 ceramic materials (Lithium disilicate, metal-ceramic, monolithic zirconia) were included. Among all, metal-ceramic and zirconia caused significantly higher enamel tooth wear on antagonist teeth, representing 82.5 µm [54.4; 110.6]) and 40.1 µm [22.2; 58.0]) more MVL than natural teeth group. In contrast, lithium disilicate showed only 5.0 µm [-48.2; 58.1]) more MVL than occurs on opposing natural teeth.
This systematic review demonstrated that prosthodontic ceramic materials produced significantly more antagonist enamel tooth wear than opposing natural enamel tooth wear, and ceramic material type was correlated to the degree of enamel tooth wear. Additional well-conducted, randomized controlled trials with homogeneous specimens are required due to inadequate sample size and number of the clinical studies included in the analyses.
The amount of wear caused by different restorative materials has a high influence on the antagonistic natural teeth and should therefore be evaluated intensively by the dentist.
本研究旨在评估不同对颌陶瓷冠材料在后牙区在功能状态下 24 个月的随访期内引起的牙釉质磨损量。通过网络荟萃分析评估材料对对抗牙釉质表面平均垂直磨损（MVL）的影响。
主要搜索词组合使用：陶瓷、牙科材料、金属陶瓷、牙齿磨损和牙釉质。
在 PubMed/Medline、Embase 和 Cochrane CENTRAL 加手工搜索中进行电子检索。
纳入标准包括报告在永久冠放置后 24 个月内对颌牙 MVL 的临床研究。从总共 5697 篇文章中，纳入了 7 项研究，共涉及 261 个牙冠，涉及 177 名患者，使用了 3 种陶瓷材料（锂硅石、金属陶瓷、整体氧化锆）。所有研究均表明，金属陶瓷和氧化锆对邻牙牙釉质的磨损明显更大，比天然牙组多 82.5 µm [54.4; 110.6]）和 40.1 µm [22.2; 58.0]）。相比之下，锂硅石仅比天然牙对颌多 5.0 µm [-48.2; 58.1]）。
本系统评价表明，修复陶瓷材料比天然牙釉质引起的对颌牙釉质磨损明显更多，并且陶瓷材料类型与牙釉质磨损程度相关。由于纳入分析的临床研究样本量和数量不足，需要进行更多精心设计的、随机对照试验。
不同修复材料引起的磨损量对邻接天然牙有很大影响，因此牙医应进行深入评估。
Zotero 插件