Search PubMed⌕ Search

subject

Dental Restoration Failure

Dental Restoration Failure: explore 9 source-linked works published from 2026 to 2026, with original documents and citations.

This collection is a preview while coverage and quality are evaluated.

Search within this collection

Coverage and selection

Includes records with this source-supplied label or an explicit phrase match in their metadata. Matches indicate a mention, not proof that a paper uses a method or tests a material. Source versions are consolidated by DOI.

Sources: pubmed. Collection updated 2026-09-15. Counts describe this index, not the complete source archives.

PubMed2026

Clinical outcomes of zirconia dental restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the survival and success rates of zirconia dental restorations (ZDRs) and their complications. DATA & SOURCES: Electronic searches of PubMed, Cochrane, Embase and Web of Science were conducted up to January 1, 2026. Clinical studies with at least 1-year follow-up evaluating zirconia dental restorations in natural teeth were included. Survival rates, success rates, and biological and mechanical complications were analyzed. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and Joanna Briggs Institute tools (JBI). Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. STUDY SELECTION & RESULTS: Sixty-six studies published between 2008 and 2025 were included. Pooled survival rates ranged from 92.9% to 98.7% up to 10 years for single crowns (SCs), 77.6% over 10 to 13 years for fixed dental prostheses (FPDs), 97.4% for resin-bonded FPDs (RBFPDs) over 10 to 15 years, from 50.0% to 52.6% over 9 to 13 years for conventional cantilever FPDs (CFPDs) and 89.0% for inlay-retained FPDs (IRFPDs) over 10 years. Pooled success rates were 46.1% for SCs over 10 years, 40.1% for FDPs over 10 to 13 years, 84.3% for RBDPDs over 10 to 15 years, 12.5% to 22.6% for CFPDs over 9 to 13 years and 70.3% for IRFPDs over 10 years. Biological and mechanical complication rates were 12.1% and 53.9% for SCs at 10 years, 19.4% and 46.7% for FPDs over 10 to 13 years, 50.0% and 37.5% for CFPDs at 9 years, 21.4% and 14.3% for IRFPDs at 3 years, and 3.3% and 8.0% for RBFPDs over 10 to 15 years. Restorations treated with airborne-particle abrasion (APA) combined with 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP) achieved favorable short-term clinical outcomes, with pooled survival and success rates of 98.6% and 97.7% for SCs, and 98.1% and 70.1% for IRFPDs, respectively. The included studies were assessed as having low to moderate risk of bias using RoB 2, NOS, and JBI tools, but GRADE assessment yielded evidence of very low certainty. CONCLUSIONS: ZDRs generally demonstrated acceptable to excellent short- to long-term survival and success outcomes. Mid- to long-term clinical performance was varied according to restoration types. The RBFPDs had relatively low complication rates, followed by the SCs, the FPDs and the IRFPDs. CFPDs exhibited relatively low success rates and high complication rates. The predominant biological complications were secondary caries and pulpitis or apical periodontitis, while chipping and debonding were the most common mechanical complications. APA treatment followed by application of MDP is capable of producing favorable short-term clinical outcomes. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: ZDRs except for CFPDs could achieve favorable mid- to long-term clinical performance. CFPDs should be conducted with caution.

Zirconium↗
PubMed2026

Influence of endodontic access on the fracture resistance, retention and microleakage of full-coverage restorations in vitro: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endodontic access through retained full-coverage restorations (FCRs) is a preferred option for patients because of its high cost-effectiveness. However, the clinical performance of FCRs after repaired access cavity remains insufficiently characterized. This systematic review investigates the effects of endodontic access cavity preparation through retained FCRs on fracture resistance, retention, and microleakage based on in vitro studies. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. Studies investigating the influence of endodontic access on the fracture resistance, retention, and microleakage of FCRs were included. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment using the QUIN tool. Meta-analysis was employed to estimate fracture resistance and retention, with sensitivity analysis and subgroup evaluation also performed. Microleakage was summarized qualitatively. RESULTS: Twentythree studies were included: fracture resistance (n = 15), retention (n = 5), and microleakage (n = 3). Endodontic access significantly reduced fracture resistance for zirconia (p = 0.0002) and lithium disilicate (LD) restorations (p = 0.007), but not for resin-matrix ceramic (RMC) restorations (p = 0.25). Abutment tooth type contributed to heterogeneity within the LD and RMC subgroups. Retention was significantly reduced when access cavities were left unrepaired (p = 0.03), whereas appropriate repair protocols restored or enhanced retention relative to baseline. Accelerated aging increased microleakage in retained FCRs. Surface pretreatments and flowable resin liners tended to reduce microleakage, but findings were inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: Endodontic access significantly reduces fracture resistance of zirconia and LD FCRs, whereas RMC restorations show no significant change. Appropriate repair protocols can restore or improve retention, potentially exceeding original values. Limited evidence suggests that effective sealing is achievable with appropriate materials. However, well-designed and in-vivo researches are needed to provide more detailed clinical guidance. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: When performing endodontic access through retained FCRs, reduced fracture resistance must be carefully considered for zirconia and LD restorations, while RMC restorations may be exempt from this concern. Loss of retention with access can be restored after repair. Surface pretreatment and flowable resin liners help decrease microleakage.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Clinical performance evaluation of single-shade versus multi-shade composite resins in non-carious cervical lesions: a 36-month randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Composite resins are widely used as the material of choice for definitive restorations due to their ability to integrate functional and aesthetic aspects in dental rehabilitation. Recently, one-shade composite resins have been introduced to simplify the clinical workflow. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the clinical performance of a "chameleon effect" composite resin with that of a multi-shade composite resin in non-carious cervical lesions after 36 months of follow-up. METHODS: This study was a randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trial with an equivalence design using a split-mouth approach. The sample consisted of 60 patients presenting at least two non-carious cervical lesions, totaling 120 restorations. Restorations were performed using two materials from the same commercial brand: Vittra Unique (one-shade group) and Vittra APS (multi-shade group). The clinical performance of the restorations was longitudinally evaluated according to the FDI criteria. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test, while other clinical parameters were compared using the chi-square test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: At baseline, no statistically significant differences were observed between the groups regarding the evaluated biological, functional, and aesthetic parameters (p > 0.05). Both materials demonstrated clinically acceptable performance according to the FDI criteria, with no significant differences between them. CONCLUSIONS: After 36 months, no significant differences were observed between the one-shade and the multi-shade composite resins in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This 36-month randomized clinical trial demonstrates that single-shade composite resins achieve structural durability and aesthetic integration equivalent to traditional multi-shade layering when restoring non-carious cervical lesions. This evidence validates a simplified, single-shade restorative workflow, significantly reducing chairside time and operator-dependent variables without compromising the clinical longevity.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Clinical accuracy and short-term outcomes of intraoral photogrammetry for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: A retrospective multicentre study on 35 patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical accuracy and short-term outcomes of complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (ISFDPs) fabricated using an intraoral photogrammetry (IPG) based digital workflow in completely edentulous patients. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective clinical study included 35 patients rehabilitated with 52 complete-arch ISFDPs (10 FP1, 18 FP2 and 24 FP3 restorations) supported by 221 implants. All definitive prostheses were designed and fabricated using a fully digital workflow initiated by IPG acquisition with the Aoralscan Elite IPG® (SHINING 3D). The primary outcome was clinical accuracy, assessed at definitive prosthesis delivery through evaluation of passive fit using the Sheffield test and radiographic verification. Secondary outcomes included biologic and prosthetic complications, as well as implant and prosthesis survival rates during the follow-up. RESULTS: Passive fit was achieved in all definitive restorations (100%). Radiographic evaluation confirmed accurate marginal adaptation at the implant-prosthesis interface in all cases. No statistically significant differences in clinical accuracy were observed according to treated arch, number of supporting implants, or prosthetic design (P > .05). During a mean follow-up period of 12.1 ± 3.5 months, biologic and prosthetic complications were limited and generally minor. Implant survival was 99.5%, and prosthesis survival was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this retrospective clinical study, the IPG based workflow demonstrated high clinical accuracy and predictable short-term outcomes for complete-arch implant rehabilitation, consistently enabling passive fit and favorable prosthetic performance. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: IPG may represent a clinically reliable and predictable approach for complete-arch digital implant impression acquisition. The high rates of passive fit, together with the low incidence of biologic and prosthetic complications observed in this multicenter clinical study, support the use of IPG based workflows for the fabrication of complete-arch ISFDPs.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Clinical performance of monolithic and veneered zirconia three-unit posterior FDPs: A five-year multicenter randomized controlled trial.

AIM: This randomized controlled clinical study compared monolithic, partially veneered, and fully veneered zirconia FDPs over a 5-year period with respect to survival, technical and biological complications, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four patients requiring three-unit posterior FDPs were randomly allocated to monolithic (MONO-FDP), partially veneered (PV-FDP), or fully veneered (FV-FDP) groups. All FDPs were fabricated from 4 mol% Y₂O₃ partially stabilized zirconia (4Y-TZP). Follow-up examinations were conducted at baseline, 1, 3, and 5 years. Technical parameters were evaluated using modified USPHS criteria. Periodontal measurements (PPD, BOP, PI) and patient satisfaction were assessed at all time points. RESULTS: A total of 63 FDPs were evaluated at baseline, 57 at 3 years, and 54 at 5 years. Survival at 5 years was 94.7% for MONO-FDPs, 100% for FV-FDPs and 100% for PV-FDPs. Technical complications occurred exclusively in PV-FDP (33%) and FV-FDP (38%) groups and consisted of minor, polishable chipping; no chipping or fractures were recorded in MONO-FDPs (0%) with statistically significant difference between MONO-FDP and the other two groups (p ≤ 0.014). Biological parameters remained stable across all groups, with no significant differences in PPD, BOP, or PI. PV-FDPs and FV-FDPs tended to receive more favorable professional color ratings, whereas PROMs were similar among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: All three FDP designs-monolithic, partially veneered, and fully veneered-fabricated from 4Y-TZP zirconia demonstrated excellent 5-year clinical performance. Technical complications were limited to PV- and FV-FDPs and consisted of minor chipping. Biological outcomes and patient satisfaction were similar across groups. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The five-year outcomes suggest that veneered, partially veneered, and monolithic FDPs can be used with high clinical reliability; however, restorations incorporating veneering ceramic may present an elevated risk of ceramic chipping.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Marginal fit and five-year outcomes of posterior monolithic zirconia restorations: A randomized paired and observational clinical study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the marginal fit and five-year clinical performance of posterior 5 mol% yttria-partially stabilized zirconia restorations. A randomized paired comparison with lithium disilicate crowns was performed for marginal fit. METHODS: A total of 65 posterior restorations were placed in 38 patients, including 32 zirconia crowns, 17 lithium disilicate crowns, and 16 zirconia partial coverage restorations. In the randomized paired comparison, 17 patients received one lithium disilicate crown and one zirconia crown. Additional zirconia crowns (n=15) and zirconia partial coverage restorations (n=16) were included in a prospective observational cohort. The primary outcome was marginal fit within the randomized cohort. Marginal and internal fit were assessed using the replica technique. Marginal and internal gap values were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test; clinical outcomes were analyzed descriptively, and Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated for survival and complication-free survival. Clinical performance was assessed using CDA criteria, periodontal parameters, complication recording, and patient-reported outcomes. Clinical examinations were performed at baseline and at 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months. RESULTS: Mean marginal gap values at the crown margin were 46 ±33 µm for lithium disilicate crowns and 50 ±32 µm for zirconia crowns (p>0.05). No restoration required replacement, resulting in 100% restoration survival after a median follow-up of 60 months (range: 57-64 months). Most complications were biological or functional, including endodontic, periodontal, occlusal, and proximal-contact-related events. One zirconia partial coverage restoration exhibited a small ceramic fracture managed by polishing. The Kaplan-Meier probability of complication-free survival was 76.4% for zirconia crowns, 66.7% for lithium disilicate crowns, and 87.5% for zirconia partial coverage restorations. CONCLUSIONS: In the randomized paired comparison, 5 mol% yttria-partially stabilized zirconia crowns showed marginal gap values similar to lithium disilicate crowns. All restorations remained in situ during the observation period. Lower complication-free survival was mainly related to biological and functional events and should be interpreted separately from restoration survival. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Clinical evidence for posterior 5 mol% yttria-partially stabilized zirconia restorations remains limited. This study provides mid-term clinical data on crowns and partial coverage restorations. In the randomized full-crown comparison, marginal fit was similar to that of lithium disilicate crowns, supporting the clinical consideration of monolithic zirconia restorations for posterior teeth.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Clinical performance of two lithium disilicate CAD/CAM materials in posterior Class II inlay restorations: A 48-month randomised split-mouth clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical performance of Amber Mill (AM) and IPS e.max CAD (EM) lithium disilicate computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) materials in posterior Class II inlay restorations and characterise their baseline properties. METHODS: Thirty-four adults received paired AM and EM posterior Class II inlays (68 restorations) in a triple-blind randomised split-mouth trial followed for 48 months. Restorations were evaluated at baseline and annually using revised World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria, with fracture and retention as the primary endpoint. Baseline characterisation included flexural strength, shear bond strength, translucency parameter, and scanning electron microscopy. McNemar, Wilcoxon signed-rank, Friedman, one-way analysis of variance, Tukey post hoc, and inter-rater agreement analyses were used. RESULTS: At 48 months, 18 paired participants were available for primary analysis. Failures occurred in 2 of 18 AM restorations and in 3 of 18 EM restorations, corresponding to success rates of 88.9% and 83.3%, respectively, with no significant between-material difference (McNemar p = 1.000). No catastrophic bulk ceramic fracture was observed. Secondary FDI scores remained mostly within the clinically acceptable range; marginal staining deteriorated over time in both groups (p < .001) without significant between-material differences. Baseline material testing showed significant material- and translucency-dependent differences in flexural strength, shear bond strength, and translucency. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the 48-month follow-up and the tested Class II inlay indication, AM showed clinical performance comparable to EM. Observed clinical complications were related to retention or marginal/interface behaviour. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: For posterior Class II lithium disilicate CAD/CAM inlays, medium-term complications were mainly retention/interface-related, suggesting adhesive-interface durability may be as important as baseline ceramic strength.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Comparison of short-term clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction between intraoral scanning and conventional impressions for complete-arch implant prostheses: a pilot RCT.

OBJECTIVE: To compare framework passive fit, subjective evaluations, and short-term clinical outcomes between conventional impressions (CI) and intraoral scanning (IOS) for complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (CIFDPs). METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, 22 patients were allocated to the CI or IOS groups. All participants received a definitive one-piece CIFDP. The primary outcome was framework passive fit, assessed using the Vision and Tactile Score (V&T score), which included framework lift-off, the single-screw test, the full-screw test, smoothness of screw insertion, and radiographic gap assessment. Secondary outcomes included operator evaluation, patient satisfaction using a visual analog scale (VAS), early implant survival, marginal bone loss (MBL), modified Plaque Index (mPII), and complications at the 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were enrolled (CI: n = 11; IOS: n = 11), and one patient in the CI group was lost to follow-up. No statistically significant difference in the V&T score was observed between the CI and IOS groups (4.66 &#xb1; 0.17 vs. 4.65 &#xb1; 0.28; P = 0.93). The operator reported greater nervousness during the CI procedure than during IOS (21.82 &#xb1; 15.69 vs. 8.64 &#xb1; 7.47; P < 0.05). Patients in the CI group reported significantly greater discomfort, including nausea and anxiety, than those in the IOS group (P < 0.05). At the 6-month follow-up, the early implant survival rate was 100% in both groups. No significant differences were found between the groups in MBL (0.09 &#xb1; 0.09 vs. 0.06 &#xb1; 0.10 mm; P = 0.43) or mPII (0.10 &#xb1; 0.12 vs. 0.10 &#xb1; 0.28; P = 0.99). CONCLUSION: IOS and CI achieved comparable short-term clinical outcomes in patients who met the predefined inclusion criteria, including controlled implant number, spacing, and angulation. IOS provided a more favorable experience for both operators and patients. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: In complete-arch implant restorations, intraoral scanning may provide clinical outcomes comparable to those of conventional impressions while improving patient comfort.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Indications, Techniques and Complications Associated With Pterygoid Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pterygoid implants represent a graftless option for rehabilitation of patients with posterior maxillary atrophy, engaging the dense cortical bone of the pterygomaxillary complex. Despite clinical growth, a comprehensive synthesis of indications, surgical techniques, and complications is lacking. This review evaluated the prevalence of complications, implant survival rates, and marginal bone loss (MBL) associated with pterygoid implant placement. METHODS: The reporting of this review follows PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Six electronic databases (PubMed, Ovid, Scopus, WoS, CENTRAL, and Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source) were searched from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2025. Included criteria comprised randomized and non-randomized clinical studies reporting outcomes of pterygoid implants (&#x2265;&#x2009;13&#x2009;mm) in adult patients with posterior maxillary atrophy (minimum 10 implants). Risk of bias was assessed using JBI critical appraisal checklists. Proportions were pooled using the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation under a random-effects model. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: Seventeen studies reporting 846 patients and 1915 pterygoid implants were included. The pooled survival rate was 97.9% (95% CI: 97.1%-98.6%; I2&#x2009;=&#x2009;0%; 14 studies) and the overall failure rate was 2.1% (95% CI: 1.4%-3.0%). Early failure rate was 0.9% (95% CI: 0.0%-3.0%; I2&#x2009;=&#x2009;59.5%). Late failure and MBL were summarized narratively. Certainty of evidence was low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: Pterygoid implants demonstrate excellent survival (97.9%) and low failure rates (2.1%), primarily early, supporting their reliability as a graftless solution for posterior maxillary atrophy. Complications appear infrequent though heterogeneously reported. Low evidence certainty necessitates prospective studies with standardized outcome reporting.

Humans↗
Compare source metadata on this page
WorkPublishedSource identifierSource
Clinical outcomes of zirconia dental restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis.2026-08-10PMID 42575241pubmed
Influence of endodontic access on the fracture resistance, retention and microleakage of full-coverage restorations in vitro: A systematic review and meta-analysis.2026-07-31PMID 42532299pubmed
Clinical performance evaluation of single-shade versus multi-shade composite resins in non-carious cervical lesions: a 36-month randomized clinical trial.2026-07-21PMID 42480895pubmed
Clinical accuracy and short-term outcomes of intraoral photogrammetry for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: A retrospective multicentre study on 35 patients.2026-07-16PMID 42462802pubmed
Clinical performance of monolithic and veneered zirconia three-unit posterior FDPs: A five-year multicenter randomized controlled trial.2026-07-16PMID 42462803pubmed
Marginal fit and five-year outcomes of posterior monolithic zirconia restorations: A randomized paired and observational clinical study.2026-07-15PMID 42457117pubmed
Clinical performance of two lithium disilicate CAD/CAM materials in posterior Class II inlay restorations: A 48-month randomised split-mouth clinical trial.2026-07-10PMID 42431583pubmed
Comparison of short-term clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction between intraoral scanning and conventional impressions for complete-arch implant prostheses: a pilot RCT.2026-07-09PMID 42425293pubmed
Indications, Techniques and Complications Associated With Pterygoid Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.2026PMID 42720248pubmed

These are bibliographic comparisons, not experimental rankings. Follow the original document for methods and conditions.