The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 24 , ISSUE 2 ( February, 2023 ) > List of Articles

REVIEW ARTICLE

Reasons for Failure of CAD/CAM Restorations in Clinical Studies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Stephan lampl, Jogikalmat Krithikadatta, Desigar Moodley

Keywords : Biological complications, Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacture materials, Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacture failure rates, Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacture success rates, Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacture survival rates, Technical complications

Citation Information : lampl S, Krithikadatta J, Moodley D. Reasons for Failure of CAD/CAM Restorations in Clinical Studies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023; 24 (2):129-136.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3472

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 23-05-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The systematic review presented herein was performed to descriptively analyze the causes for the failure of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacture (CAD/CAM) restorations. The meta-analysis reported herein was performed to estimate long-term survival and success rates of CAD–CAM fabrications. Materials and methods: Using the PICOS paradigm, a systematic search was carried out in the PubMed and Cochrane databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational studies reporting survival data for CAD/CAM restorations. After selecting studies with a predefined set of selection criteria, data from included prospective clinical studies and RCTs were used for a systematic review aimed at a descriptive analysis of factors associated with failure of CAD–CAM restorations. Data from the included prospective clinical studies were used for meta-analysis, wherein 5-year and 10-year survival and success rates were estimated using Poisson regression models. Results: The systematic review included data from 9 RCTs and 6 observational studies, which had a median follow-up of 36 months and 60 months, respectively. About 58 failures and 118 technical/biological complications were noted in the included RCTs and 9 failures along with 58 technical/biological complications were noted in the prospective clinical studies. Poisson regression indicated an estimated 5-year and 10-year survival rates of 85.55–100 and 71–100, respectively. The estimated 5-year and 10-year success rates were 74.2–92.75 and 33.3–85.5, respectively. Conclusion: Several technical and biological complications contribute to failure of CAD/CAM restorations. However, CAD/CAM restorations with routine chairside materials might have clinically meaningful success rates in the long term. Clinical significance: The results presented herein indicate that optimal strategies for mitigation of biological and technical complications may augment the success of CAD/CAM fabrications in restorative dentistry. Studies aimed at identification of such strategies are needed to further enhance the long-term success rates of CAD/CAM restorations.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Oral Health [cited March 24, 2023]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/oral-health.
  2. Pandey P, Nandkeoliar T, Tikku AP, et al. Prevalence of dental caries in the Indian population: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2021;11(3):256–265.
  3. Grewal H, Verma M, Kumar A. Prevalence of dental caries and treatment needs amongst the school children of three educational zones of urban Delhi, India. Indian J Dent Res 2011;22(4):517–519.
  4. The Latest State of the Cosmetic Dentistry Industry Survey Results | AACD [cited March 24, 2023]. Available from: https://aacd.com/the-latest-state-of-the-industry-survey-results.
  5. Jorquera G, Mahn E, Sanchez JP, et al. Hybrid ceramics in dentistry: A literature review. J Clin Res Dent 2018;1(2). Available from: https://asclepiusopen.com/articles/95
  6. Srinivasan M, Kamnoedboon P, McKenna G, et al. CAD-CAM removable complete dentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis of trueness of fit, biocompatibility, mechanical properties, surface characteristics, color stability, time-cost analysis, clinical and patient-reported outcomes. J Dent 2021;113:103777. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103777.
  7. Janeva NM, Kovacevska G, Elencevski S, et al. Advantages of CAD/CAM versus conventional complete dentures – A review. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2018;6(8):1498–1502. DOI: 10.3889/oamjms.2018.308.
  8. Jung S, Moser MM, Kleinheinz J, et al. Biocompatibility of lithium disilicate and zirconium oxide ceramics with different surface topographies for dental implant abutments. Int J Mol Sci 2021;22(14):7700. DOI: 10.3390/ijms22147700.
  9. Zarone F, Di Mauro MI, Ausiello P, et al. Current status on lithium disilicate and zirconia: A narrative review. BMC Oral Health 2019;19(1):134. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-019-0838-x.
  10. Saravi B, Vollmer A, Hartmann M, et al. Clinical performance of CAD/CAM all-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Materials (Basel) 2021;14(10):2672. DOI: 10.3390/ma14102672.
  11. Marchesi G, Camurri Piloni A, Nicolin V, et al. Chairside CAD/CAM materials: Current trends of clinical uses. Biology 2021;10(11):1170. DOI: 10.3390/biology10111170.
  12. Ketabi AR, Ketabi R, Brenner M, et al. Retrospective analysis of biological and technical complications using individual CAD/CAM abutments. Dentistry 7(9):1–9. DOI: 10.4172/2161-1122.1000449.
  13. Lechte C, Hausdörfer T, Kanzow P, et al. Clinical performance of CAD-CAM partial-coverage restorations: Experienced versus less-experienced operators. J Prosthet Dent 2022;128(6):1245–1251. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.09.011.
  14. Guncu MB, Aktas G, Turkyilmaz I, et al. Performance of high-translucent zirconia CAD/CAM fixed dental prostheses using a digital workflow: A clinical study up to 6 years. J Dent Sci 2023;18(1):44–49. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2022.07.023.
  15. Konstantinidis I, Trikka D, Gasparatos S, et al. Clinical outcomes of monolithic zirconia crowns with CAD/CAM technology. A 1-year follow-up prospective clinical study of 65 patients. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018;15(11):2523. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15112523.
  16. Schestatsky R, Zucuni CP, Venturini AB, et al. CAD-CAM milled versus pressed lithium-disilicate monolithic crowns adhesively cemented after distinct surface treatments: Fatigue performance and ceramic surface characteristics. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2019;94:144–154. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.03.005.
  17. Miglani S. Burden of dental caries in India: Current scenario and future strategies. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2020;13(2):155–159. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1733.
  18. Batra P, Saini P, Yadav V. Oral health concerns in India. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2020;10(2):171–174. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2020.04.011.
  19. Gambhir RS, Nirola A, Gupta T, et al. Oral health knowledge and awareness among pregnant women in India: A systematic review. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2015;19(6):612–617. DOI: 10.4103/0972-124X.162196.
  20. Moga C. Development of a Quality Appraisal Tool for Case Series Studies Using a Modified Delphi Technique: Methodology Paper. Institute of Health Economics: Edmonton, AB, Canada; 2012. ISBN 978-1-926929-04-0. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Development-of-a-quality-appraisal-tool-for-case-a-Moga-Guo/fd47b9a8e1b91168b3adcb6f300.
  21. El-Ma'aita A, Al-Rabab'ah MA, Abu-Awwad M, et al. Endocrowns clinical performance and patient satisfaction: A randomized clinical trial of three monolithic ceramic restorations. J Prosthodont 2022;31(1):30–37. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13414.
  22. Schlichting LH, Resende TH, Reis KR, et al. Ultrathin CAD-CAM glass-ceramic and composite resin occlusal veneers for the treatment of severe dental erosion: An up to 3-year randomized clinical trial. J Prosthet Dent 2022;128(2):158.e1–158.e12. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.02.009.
  23. Gardell E, Larsson C, von Steyern PV. Translucent zirconium dioxide and lithium disilicate: A 3-year follow-up of a prospective, practice-based randomized controlled trial on posterior monolithic crowns. Int J Prosthodont 2021;34(2):163–172. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.6795.
  24. Scholz KJ, Tabenski IM, Vogl V, et al. Randomized clinical split-mouth study on the performance of CAD/CAM-partial ceramic crowns luted with a self-adhesive resin cement or a universal adhesive and a conventional resin cement after 39 months. J Dent 2021;115:103837. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103837.
  25. Mühlemann S, Lakha T, Jung RE, et al. Prosthetic outcomes and clinical performance of CAD-CAM monolithic zirconia versus porcelain-fused-to-metal implant crowns in the molar region: 1-year results of a RCT. Clin Oral Implants Res 2020;31(9):856–864. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13631.
  26. Nassar H, Halim CH, Katamish HA. Clinical outcomes of zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate partial coverage crowns compared to lithium disilicate partial coverage crowns. A randomized controlled split-mouth clinical study. F1000 Res 2019;8:305. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.18274.1.
  27. Monaco C, Llukacej A, Baldissara P, et al. Zirconia-based versus metal-based single crowns veneered with overpressing ceramic for restoration of posterior endodontically treated teeth: 5-year results of a randomized controlled clinical study. J Dent 2017;65:56–63. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.07.004.
  28. Naenni N, Bindl A, Sax C, et al. A randomized controlled clinical trial of 3-unit posterior zirconia-ceramic fixed dental prostheses (FDP) with layered or pressed veneering ceramics: 3-year results. J Dent 2015;43(11):1365–1370. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.07.013.
  29. Sailer I, Gottnerb J, Kanelb S, et al. Randomized controlled clinical trial of zirconia-ceramic and metal-ceramic posterior fixed dental prostheses: A 3-year follow-up. Int J Prosthodont 2009;22(6):553–560. PMID: 19918588.
  30. Chaar MS, Passia N, Kern M. Ten-year clinical outcome of three-unit posterior FDPs made from a glass-infiltrated zirconia reinforced alumina ceramic (in-ceram zirconia). J Dent 2015;43(5):512–517. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.02.016.
  31. Reich S, Endres L, Weber C, et al. Three-unit CAD/CAM-generated lithium disilicate FDPs after a mean observation time of 46 months. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18(9):2171–2178. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-014-1191-8.
  32. Burke FJT, Crisp RJ, Cowan AJ, et al. Five-year clinical evaluation of zirconia-based bridges in patients in UK general dental practices. J Dent 2013;41(11):992–999. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.08.007.
  33. Sorrentino R, De Simone G, Tetè S, et al. Five-year prospective clinical study of posterior three-unit zirconia-based fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16(3):977–985. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-011-0575-2.
  34. Schmitt J, Holst S, Wichmann M, et al. Zirconia posterior fixed partial dentures: A prospective clinical 3-year follow-up. Int J Prosthodont 2009;22(6):597–603. PMID: 19918596.
  35. Beuer F, Edelhoff D, Gernet W, et al. Three-year clinical prospective evaluation of zirconia-based posterior fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Clin Oral Investig 2009;13(4):445–451. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-009-0249-5.
  36. Rodrigues SB, Franken P, Celeste RK, et al. CAD/CAM or conventional ceramic materials restorations longevity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont Res 2019;63(4):389–395. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2018.11.006.
  37. Almukhlis S. Clinical Performance of CAD/CAM Versus Conventional Ceramic Restorations on Posterior Teeth: A Retrospective Study. Student Theses, Dissertations and Capstones 2018. Available from: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/hpd_cdm_stuetd/114.
  38. Abdullah AO, Tsitrou EA, Pollington S. Comparative in vitro evaluation of CAD/CAM vs conventional provisional crowns. J Appl Oral Sci 2016;24(3):258–263. DOI: 10.1590/1678-775720150451.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.