ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
Long-term performance of ceramic in/-onlays vs. cast gold partial crowns - a retrospective clinical study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of different finishing/polishing protocols and aging on flexural strength, roughness, and surface characteristics of definitive restorative materials for CAD/CAM.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Metal Alloys Used in Dental Prosthetics and Their Impact on the Oral Microbiome: Narrative Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Restoration's Longevity in Endodontically Treated Teeth: A Machine Learning Survival Analysis From Randomised Clinical Trials.International endodontic journal · 2026Article
- Esthetic and Functional Posterior Rehabilitation With Lithium Disilicate Ceramics for the Replacement of Gold Alloy and Metal-Ceramic Restorations: A Clinical Case With a 10-Year Follow-Up.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the long-term clinical performance of ceramic in-/onlays (CIOs) and cast gold partial crowns (CGPCs) in posterior teeth in terms of success, survival, complications (biological, technical) and quality. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn a retrospective study, a total of 325 patients were recorded after up to 24.8 years (mean 13.9 ± 3.8 years) having (pre-)molars restored with CIO (Empress I, Ivoclar Vivadent, n = 161) and CGPC (Degunorm, DeguDent, n = 164) by supervised undergraduate students. A total of 296 restorations were assessed clinically and radiologically in healthy and endodontically treated teeth using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Cumulative success and survival rates of the restorations were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Biological and technical complications were recorded. Status of oral health comprising caries risk and localized periodontitis were assessed.
resultsThe cumulative success rates of CIOs were 92.1% and of CGPCs 84.2% after mean service times of 14.5 years. The annual failure rates of total service times were 0.5% in teeth restored with CIO (n = 155) and 0.7% in teeth restored with CGPC (n = 163). The cumulative survival rates of CIOs were 93.9% after a mean service time of 15.2 years and decreased to 91.7% after 23.5 years. The cumulative survival rates of CGPCs were 92.6% after a mean service time of 14.9 years and 91.8% after 23.5 years. Complications in CIOs (n = 149) were ceramic fracture (6.7%), secondary caries (4.7%), endodontic complication (2.7%) and tooth fracture (1.3%) compared to CGPCs (n = 147) with endodontic complication (8.8%), secondary caries (4.8%) and decementation (2.0%). Endodontically treated teeth restored with CIO or CGPC revealed significantly less often success compared with corresponding vital teeth (p = .02). CIOs and CGPCs revealed clinically and radiographically good and excellent qualities with 71.8% (107/149) and 68% (100/147) without any significant differences regarding type of restoration.
conclusionsBoth CIOs and CGPCs achieved high survival rates up to 24.8 years when performed by supervised undergraduate students. The longevity of the restorations may benefit from the intraoral repair of accessible defects and, in case of pulp infection or necrosis, an adequate endodontic management. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: CIOs and CGPCs made by supervised undergraduate students are proper restoration types in posterior teeth in the long-term. An adequate preparation design, meticulous care in the inserting technique and constant biofilm removal due to proper oral hygiene combined with professional maintenance care are substantial. The clinical long-term performance was mostly limited by ceramic fractures in CIOs and endodontic complications in CGPCs.
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.