Comparison of 16.9-year survival of pressed acid etched e.max lithium disilicate glass-ceramic complete and partial coverage restorations in posterior teeth: Performance and outcomes as a function of tooth position, age, sex, and thickness of ceramic material

Statement of problemLong-term clinical data are lacking on the comparison survival adhesively luted pressed e.max lithium disilicate glass-ceramic complete and partial coverage restorations in posterior dentitions effect that different technical variables have their survival.PurposeThe purpose this study was to examine compare 16.9-year associated parameters outcome.Material methodsPatients requiring either single-unit defect-specific or were recruited a private practice. The participants offered options direct restorations, cast gold, (lithium disilicate) restorations. Those given metal-ceramic, Only who chose included study. overall assessed by factors determined at recall. various (type restoration, dental arch, tooth position age sex participant, ceramic thickness) evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves account for attrition bias other reasons failure. statistical significance differences between log rank test (?=.05).ResultsA total 738 2392 teeth evaluated. mean time restoration placement 62 (range: 20-99 years, 302 men 436 women). Of units, 1782 610 A 22 failures (bulk fracture large chip) replacement recorded with average failure 3.5 (0.02-7.9) years. risk computed these units 13227.9 providing an estimated 0.17% per year. cumulative 96.49%. (n=1782) (n=610) 96.75% 10.5 years 95.27% 16.9 (P<.05). 22, 16 10144.5 0.16 6 occurred 3083.5 0.19% No statistically significant difference found among women, groups, arch (P>.05). thickness also had no influence (P>.05).ConclusionsPressed showed high rates over period, rate Risk any low both women. none confounding variables, including appeared survival.