Presentation Category
Literature Review
Introduction/Context/Diagnosis
Objectives: To compare lithium discilicate and monolithic zirconia as a restorative material. Background: Zirconia and Lithium disilicate have been widely utilized in dental restorations for both partial and full coverage procedures, employing monolithic and layered methods. The aim of this literature review was to assess these materials and compare them based on various criteria, such as tooth preparation, bonding techniques, optical and mechanical properties, clinical performance, biocompatibility, marginal fit and adaptation. Additionally, this review also compared the clinical outcomes of these materials in different types of restorations including full and partial coverage restorations, implants, fixed partial dentures, and endocrowns. Methods: To perform the literature review, a search was performed on PubMed and Google Scholar for articles published between 1990 and 2024. Additionally, information was gathered from a variety of internet sources, including articles and videos. Results: The results indicate that tooth-supported crowns made by zirconia and lithium disilicate demonstrated similar mechanical properties, clinical performance, and survival rates across a range of scenarios. Material selection depends on position of the tooth in the arch, the functionality and retention required from the material to withstand occlusal forces. Conclusion: After a comprehensive review of the available literature, it was concluded that the longevity/success of the restoration depends on a lot of factors like the material properties, bonding protocol, adequate tooth reduction, patient compliance, clinician's hand skills and judgment. Over the past few years, the advantageous qualities of ceramics have been increasingly recognized, and with the current advancements in bonding techniques in dentistry, these ceramics have the capability to be considered as practical and durable options for patients.
Location
Arthur A Dugoni School of Dentistry, 155 5th St, San Francisco, CA 94103, USA
Format
Presentation
Comparison of Lithium Disilicate and Zirconia as Restorative Materials
Arthur A Dugoni School of Dentistry, 155 5th St, San Francisco, CA 94103, USA
Objectives: To compare lithium discilicate and monolithic zirconia as a restorative material. Background: Zirconia and Lithium disilicate have been widely utilized in dental restorations for both partial and full coverage procedures, employing monolithic and layered methods. The aim of this literature review was to assess these materials and compare them based on various criteria, such as tooth preparation, bonding techniques, optical and mechanical properties, clinical performance, biocompatibility, marginal fit and adaptation. Additionally, this review also compared the clinical outcomes of these materials in different types of restorations including full and partial coverage restorations, implants, fixed partial dentures, and endocrowns. Methods: To perform the literature review, a search was performed on PubMed and Google Scholar for articles published between 1990 and 2024. Additionally, information was gathered from a variety of internet sources, including articles and videos. Results: The results indicate that tooth-supported crowns made by zirconia and lithium disilicate demonstrated similar mechanical properties, clinical performance, and survival rates across a range of scenarios. Material selection depends on position of the tooth in the arch, the functionality and retention required from the material to withstand occlusal forces. Conclusion: After a comprehensive review of the available literature, it was concluded that the longevity/success of the restoration depends on a lot of factors like the material properties, bonding protocol, adequate tooth reduction, patient compliance, clinician's hand skills and judgment. Over the past few years, the advantageous qualities of ceramics have been increasingly recognized, and with the current advancements in bonding techniques in dentistry, these ceramics have the capability to be considered as practical and durable options for patients.
Comments/Acknowledgements
Presentation Category: IDS: First Year Literature Review