SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Lithium disilicate”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

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

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

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

Effects of adjunctive memantine on executive function and global cognition in bipolar disorder (BD): A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment contributes substantially to disability in bipolar disorder (BD), but effective pharmacologic options remain limited. This trial evaluated whether adjunctive memantine improves global cognition and executive function in BD. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial, patients with bipolar I disorder (B1D) receiving lithium and olanzapine were assigned to memantine or placebo. Memantine was titrated to 20 mg/day over 6 weeks. Cognitive outcomes were assessed at baseline, week 6, and week 18. Global cognition was measured with the Neurocognitive Assessment Battery (NuCog), and executive function with the Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB). Data were analyzed using generalized estimating equations and Bonferroni-adjusted post-hoc tests. RESULTS: Sixty-three participants were randomized (memantine, n = 31; placebo, n = 32), and all completed follow-up. Groups were comparable at baseline for demographic and clinical variables and for most cognitive measures. Both groups improved over time (P < 0.001), but improvement was greater with memantine for global cognition at week 6 (MD = 9.32; 95% CI, 4.84-13.81; P < 0.001) and week 18 (MD = 12.69; 95% CI, 8.67-16.71; P < 0.001). FAB total scores favored memantine at week 18 (MD = 2.68; 95% CI, 1.76-3.61; P < 0.001), but not at week 6. Domain analyses showed significant benefits for NuCog attention, visuoconstructional ability, memory, and executive function, and for several FAB subscales by week 18. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive memantine improved global cognition and, over longer follow-up, executive function in BD. These findings support NMDA receptor modulation as a potential strategy for cognitive dysfunction in BD.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Efficacy, acceptability, and related outcomes of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar mania: a systematic review and dose-related network meta-analysis across different age groups.

BACKGROUND: Acute bipolar mania carries negative social and economic consequences. We investigated the comparative efficacy/response/acceptability of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar mania, considering dose effects across different age groups. METHODS: We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacological interventions with one another or placebo in acute bipolar mania patients, indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus (from inception through 2025.12.24). Co-primary outcomes were change in manic symptoms/response/and acceptability. Tolerability/remission and rate of adverse events were secondary outcomes. Confidence-In-Network-Meta-Analysis was likewise appraised. RESULTS: 113 RCTs, encompassing 49 distinct treatment combinations, included 20,666 participants. Sensitivity analysis retaining only low-risk-of-bias studies and excluding outliers for possible effect modifiers indicated that risperidone 3 mg/day(SMD = -7.57;95%C.I. = -8.25;-5.85); tamoxifen 160 mg/day(SMD = -1.73;95%C.I. = -2.32;-1.13); rivastigmine 3 mg/day(SMD = -1.13;95%C.I. = -1.06;-0.58); haloperidol 30 mg/day(SMD = -0.96;95%C.I. = -1.25;-0.75); valproate 750 mg/day(SMD = -0.76;95%C.I. = -1.48;-0.58); tamoxifen 40 mg/day(SMD = -0.75;95%C.I. = -1.41;-0.59); celecoxib 400 mg/day(SMD = -0.74;95%C.I. = -1.20;-0.38); paliperidone extended-release 12 mg/day(SMD = -0.62; 95%C.I. = -0.91;-0.32); olanzapine 15 mg/day(SMD = -0.59;95%C.I. = -0.60;-0.38); olanzapine 20 mg/day(SMD = -0.52;95%C.I. = -0.66;-0.38); risperidone 4 mg/day(SMD = -0.53;95%C.I. = -0.76;-0.29); allopurinol 600 mg/day(SMD = -0.54;95%C.I. = -0.67;-0.22); cariprazine 12 mg/day(SMD = -0.49;95%C.I. = -0.66;-0.33); risperidone 4.2 mg/day(SMD = -0.46;95%C.I. = -0.75;-0.17); lithium 1500 mg/day(SMD = -0.42;95%C.I. = -0.57;-0.28); ziprasidone 160 mg/day(SMD = -0.49;95%C.I. = -0.68;-0.31); asenapine 20 mg/day(SMD = -0.38;95%C.I. = -0.53;-0.22); haloperidol 8 mg/day(SMD = -0.34;95%C.I. = -0.63;-0.05); aripiprazole 15 mg/day(SMD = -0.33;95%C.I. = -0.61;-0.06) outperformed placebo. Ziprasidone 160 mg/day, celecoxib 200 mg/day, asenapine 20 mg/day, and asenapine 10 mg/day proved more efficacious than placebo in children. No statistically significant differences were reported between treatments and placebo for response/remission/acceptability/tolerability, and manic/hypomanic switch. A meta-regression of efficacy effect sizes against the adapted AMSTAR-Plus content scores showed that larger SMDs were associated with lower AMSTAR scores, indicating lower study quality, warranting further caution for such large efficacy estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are consistent with previous NMAs and current guidelines, expanding the current knowledge base while concurrently appraising different drugs, doses, and age groups.

Humans↗