ArticleJournal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.]2025
Multicenter Prospective Clinical Study on Chairside-Fabricated Partial Crowns: 5-Year Results for Lithia-Zirconia Glass-Ceramic Restorations.
Article in Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.], 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Prostheses: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesClinical evaluation of chairside-fabricated lithia-zirconia glass-ceramic (LZGC) partial crowns (CCPCs) in a multicenter practice-based study. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeventy-one patients were restored with 92 adhesively luted CCPCs (Cerec SW 4.2/Cerec MC XL/Celtra Duo) in three private dental clinics (C1-C3). Time-dependent (Kaplan-Meier) survival rates (SVR) and success rates (SCR) were calculated. The following possible covariates of SVRs and SCRs were evaluated in a Cox regression model: Restoration position (premolar/molar), luting material (Variolink/Calibra), and operator (C1-C3).
resultsSeventy-three CCPCs were placed in 59 patients and were included in the study (mean observational period: 58.0 ± 15 months). Four complete failures (two tooth fractures, one restoration fracture, and one endodontic failure) were recorded. All failures and interventions occurred in one of the three centers (5-year SCR: C1 + C2: 100%; C3: 71%; 95% confidence interval: [0.55; 0.87]). Additionally, three biological, and two technical complications required clinical intervention to maintain function, and all occurred in C3. Restorations placed in C1 and C2 showed a significantly reduced risk for failure/intervention (hazard ratio = 0.103, p = 0.026) compared with restorations placed in C3.
conclusionsLZGC CCPCs showed good five-year clinical performance. However, SVRs and SCRs were significantly influenced by the operator. Additional clinical data are required for a more detailed investigation of this effect.
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.