Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Zirconia”

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.

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

4 recordsLinked to original sources
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 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

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↗