AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
Powered by AMiner. Clicking this button will take you away from SciOpen.
Home Journal of Prevention and Treatment for Stomatological Diseases Article
PDF (1 MB)
Cite
EndNote(RIS) BibTeX
Collect
Submit Manuscript AI Chat Paper
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Publishing Language: Chinese | Open Access

Analysis of reasons for failure of chair-side CAD/CAM ceramic restorations

Junchi MA1, Jin LI1, Xiaoyan ZENG2, Jian HU2( )
Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, Nanjing Medical University; Department of V.I.P., Affiliated Hospital of Stomatology, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, China
Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, Nanjing Medical University; Department of Prosthodontics, Affiliated Hospital of Stomatology, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, China
Show Author Information

Abstract

Objective

To investigate the failure reasons of all-ceramic restorations fabricated with chair-side CAD-CAM technology (CERECⓇ) and to improve the clinical survival of all-ceramic restorations.

Methods

All-ceramic single-tooth restorations of CERECⓇ in stomatology hospital of Jiangsu province between 2013 and 2016 were summarized. By clinical examination and CEREC Biogeneric surveying, the failure reasons and related restoration types were evaluated. These results were analyzed with Chi-square test and Spearman correlation analysis.

Results

A total of 61 cases with restoration types of 11 inlays, 38 onlays, 2 endocrowns, and 11 all-crowns, resulted in a failure rate of 5.4% in all-ceramic single-tooth restorations in 1-4 years follow-up. The reasons for failure included ceramic fracture (n＝33), debonding (n＝13), tooth fracture (n＝15), which attributed to thin ceramic thickness (n＝27), acute line angle (n＝6), insufficient enamel bulk (n＝3), insufficient retention type (n＝10), insufficient resistance type (n＝15).

Conclusion

The most common reason for failure in CERECⓇ restorations was insufficient preparation space in occlusal surface.

Keywords

Chair-side CAD / CAMRisk of failureAll-ceramic restorationCeramic fractureOnlay
CLC number: R783.4 Document code: A Article ID: 2096-1456(2017)11-0723-06

References

【1】
【1】
 
 
Crossref Google Scholar
Journal of Prevention and Treatment for Stomatological Diseases
Volume 25 Issue 11,
November 2017
Pages 723-728
DOI: 10.12016/j.issn.2096-1456.2017.11.009

{{item.num}}

Comments on this article

Go to comment

< Back to all reports

Review Status: {{reviewData.commendedNum}} Commended , {{reviewData.revisionRequiredNum}} Revision Required , {{reviewData.notCommendedNum}} Not Commended Under Peer Review

Review Comment

Cite this Report
Close
Close
Cite this article:
MA J, LI J, ZENG X, et al. Analysis of reasons for failure of chair-side CAD/CAM ceramic restorations. Journal of Prevention and Treatment for Stomatological Diseases, 2017, 25(11): 723-728. https://doi.org/10.12016/j.issn.2096-1456.2017.11.009

107

Views

0

Downloads

0

Crossref

0

Scopus
Received: 04 August 2017
Revised: 18 September 2017
Published: 20 November 2017
© 2017 by Editorial Department of Journal of Prevention and Treatment for Stomatological Diseases

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.