Clinical performance of lithium disilicate and zirconia CAD/CAM crowns using digital impressions: A systematic review. Issue 4 (December 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Benli, Merve; Turkyilmaz, Ilser; Martinez, Jacqueline L.; Schwartz, Shelby
• Is Part Of: Primary dental journal. Volume 11:Issue 4(2022)
• Page Start: 71
• Page End: 76
• Publication Date: 2022-12
• Subjects: CAD/CAM -- ceramic -- digital dentistry -- intra-oral scanner -- zirconia; Dentistry -- Periodicals; Dentistry -- Great Britain -- Periodicals; 617.6
• DOI: 10.1177/20501684221132941
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2050-1684

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the clinical performance of lithium disilicate (LDS) and zirconia (Z) single crowns manufactured by computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) systems using intraoral optical scanners (IOS). Materials and methods: An electronic search for articles published between January 2012 and January 2022 in the English language was performed with the Medline/Pubmed database under the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA). The specific search terms used were "zirconia", "lithium disilicate", "CAD/CAM", "intraoral optical scanner", and "survival". Results: The initial electronic search resulted in 278 articles. Most of the resulting articles were excluded, six clinical studies addressing the clinical outcomes of Z and LDS crowns fitted the inclusion criteria and were selected for review. Of these six studies, three were randomised controlled trials, two were retrospective studies, and one was a prospective study. To quantify the clinical performance of the crowns several parameters were recorded, including fractures, endodontic complications, periodontal complications, technical complications, aesthetic complications, and biological complications. It was noted that the most common technical complication of Z and LDS crowns was chipping at a rate of 1.4% and 5% respectively. Regarding Z crowns, aesthetic concerns were the most frequently observed complication. Conclusion: The outcomes of this systematic review indicate that Z and LDS crowns display a similar incidence of periodontal and endodontic complications when compared to metal-ceramic crowns, suggesting that these all-ceramic materials are viable alternatives. The incidence of chipping was higher in LDS crowns compared to other materials, while Z crowns were inferior in terms of aesthetics.