From Volume 48, Issue 8, September 2021 | Pages 690-696
The large choice of ceramic materials for an indirect restoration has given clinicians a dilemma when choosing a suitable ceramic material for restorations in anterior or posterior teeth. Part 1 compared the physical properties and aesthetics of lithium disilicate and zirconia materials. This article explores recent clinical research on these materials.
The first article in this short series1 principally described the materials science aspect of two frequently-used ceramic materials: lithium disilicate and zirconia. It is the aim of Part 2 to review recent clinical research in these materials and discuss whether the results of this narrative review reflect those in Part 1 by the present authors,1 despite reservations having been expressed in the past2,3 that there is dubious correlation between laboratory-based research and clinical results. This article, therefore, will describe recently published research on zirconia and lithium disilicate crowns and bridges, and also will include publications comparing zirconia-based and metal–ceramic restorations, given that the latter has been a clinical ‘gold standard’ for recent decades when viable alternatives were few and far between.
The authors of the present article consider that this comparison is of great relevance, given that metal–ceramic crowns and bridges have been the ‘gold standard’ for tooth-coloured indirect restorations, despite the limitations apparent in Figure 1a. Table 1 presents the recent research that has been identified, while Figure 1 presents failed, unaesthetic metal–ceramic crowns at UL1 and UR1.
Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:
What's included
