|
Title |
Longevity of Single Tooth Restorations Fabricated Using the CAD/CAM System is Similar to that of Traditional Laboratory Techniques. |
Clinical Question |
In a patient requiring a full coverage crown how does the use of the CAD/CAM system differ from traditional laboratory techniques for crown fabrication in terms of longevity and stability. |
Clinical Bottom Line |
Restorations using a CAD/CAM system have a similar survival rate as traditional all porcelain crowns. |
Best Evidence |
(you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link) |
PubMed ID |
Author / Year |
Patient Group |
Study type
(level of evidence) |
#1) 20095195 | Wittneben/2009 | Patients receiving CAD/CAM single tooth restorations | Systematic Review | Key results | CAD/CAM restorations seem to have similar survival rates as traditional restorations. Survival Rate after Five Years for CAD/CAM Crown: 92.3% (Cl = 72.0-98.1); P value = .867 | #2) 16950934 | Fasbinder/2006 | Patients receiving Crowns fabricated using the CEREC 2 (CAD/CAM) machine | Review | Key results | CEREC-generated restorations have a low rate of restoration fracture and long-term clinical survivability. Kaplan-Meier method survival probability – 91.7% n-Ceram Spinell crowns after 44.7 ± 10.3 months.94.4% percent for Vitablocs Mark II crowns after 44.7 ± 10.3 months. | |
Evidence Search |
"Computer-Aided Design"[Mesh] AND "Dental Restoration Failure"[Mesh] Limits: Review |
Comments on
The Evidence |
The Wittneben study used a Systematic Review using the electronic databases PubMed and Embase searching from 1985 – 2007. Overall 1,957 single tooth restorations were taking into account 106 crowns. The Fasbinder study used a review of clinical studies from 1985 through 2006. No specific numbers were provided as to the number of restorations taken into account in total. It was not a systematic review. |
Applicability |
The results of the reviews can directly relate to these question’s concerns. A restoration, specifically a crown, fabricated using the CAD/CAM technique shows similar survival rates are more traditional laboratory techniques. |
Specialty/Discipline |
(General Dentistry) (Prosthodontics) |
Keywords |
CAD/CAM, Crowns
|
ID# |
2243 |
Date of submission: |
04/12/2012 |
E-mail |
chodavadia@livemail.uthscsa.edu |
Author |
Hardik Chodavadia |
Co-author(s) |
|
Co-author(s) e-mail |
|
Faculty mentor/Co-author |
Robert A. Kaminski, DDS, MS |
Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail |
KaminskiR@uthscsa.edu |
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?) |
post a rationale |
None available | |
|
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS', FACULTY, RESIDENTS and/or STUDENTS COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs) |
post a comment |
by Kyle Gopffarth and Anna Stell (San Antonio, TX) on 11/28/2017 A PubMed search was conducted on this clinical question in November 2017. While there have been new systematic reviews conducted concerning the longevity of CAD/CAM restorations, none of these concern full-coverage crowns. One review concerning porcelain veneers looked at 5- and 10-year failure rates, which would be an appropriate measure for full-coverage crowns in order to determine just how comparable CAD/CAM crowns' longevity is to traditional crowns' long-term; however, the systematic review was only able to procure one source for CAD/CAM porcelain veneers. It would also be beneficial to consider the types of materials used for both CAD/CAM and traditional crowns, as they can differ between studies. | |
|
|