ArticleThe journal of advanced prosthodontics2023
Six-year clinical performance of lithium disilicate glass-ceramic CAD-CAM versus metal-ceramic crowns.
Article in The journal of advanced prosthodontics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fracture resistance of premolar screw-retained implant-supported hybrid abutment crowns with monolithic restorations after thermomechanical aging.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2026Article
- Digital Dentistry in Clinical Practice: A Scoping Review of Current Capabilities and Future Directions.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the Surface Properties of Three CAD/CAM Ceramics: A Comparative In Vitro Study.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Hybrid TiONature communications · 2025Article
- Digitally fabricated posterior ceramic crowns versus conventionally fabricated cast crowns: a split-mouth retrospective cohort study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Influence of occlusal thickness on the fracture resistance of chairside milled lithium disilicate posterior full-coverage single-unit prostheses containing virgilite: A comparative in vitro study.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2025Article
- Review
- Clinical Survival of Reduced-Thickness Monolithic Lithium-Disilicate Crowns: A 3-Year Randomized Controlled Trial.Acta stomatologica Croatica · 2024Article
- Long-term survival of monolithic tooth-supported lithium disilicate crowns fabricated using a chairside approach: 15-year results.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
- Prosthetic restoration material selection using an integrated Fermatean fuzzy MCDM method.Science progressArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the clinical performance of monolithic CAD-CAM lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (LDGC) crowns and metal-ceramic (MC) crowns provided by predoctoral students. This study also assessed the effects of patient and provider-related factors on their clinical performance as well as patient preference for these types of crowns. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-five patients who received 50 crowns (25 LDGC CAD-CAM and 25 MC) provided by predoctoral students were retrospectively examined. LDGC CAD-CAM crowns were milled in-house using the CEREC Bluecam system and cemented with either RelyX Unicem or Calibra Esthetic resin cements. MC crowns were cemented with RelyX Unicem cement. Clinical assessment of the crowns and the supporting periodontal structures were performed following the modified California Dental Association (CDA) criteria. Patients' preference was recorded using a visual analog scale (VAS). The results were statistically analyzed using log-rank test, Pearson Chi-squared test and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.
resultsTwelve complications were observed in the MC crown group (9-esthetic, 2-technical and 1-biological). In comparison, 2 complications in the LDGC CAD-CAM crown group were observed (1-technical and 1-esthetic). The 6-year cumulative survival rates for MC crowns and LDGC CAD-CAM were 90.8% and 96%, respectively, whereas the success rates were 83.4% and 96%, respectively. Overall, patients preferred the esthetic outcomes of LDGC CAD-CAM crowns over MC crowns.
conclusionThe high survival and success rates, low number of complications, and the high level of patients' acceptance of monolithic LDGC CAD-CAM crowns lend them well as predictable and viable alternatives to the "gold standard" MC crowns.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.