Objectives: Cast gold partial crowns (CGPC) are an accepted means of restoring posterior teeth with extended lesions. However, for esthetic reasons, CGPC are being increasingly substituted with partial ceramic crowns (CPC). The aim of the present prospective clinical study was to compare the long term clinical performance of CPC and CGPC.

Methods: 29 patients (12 male, 17 female) participated in the investigation. In each patient, one CGPC (Degulor C) and one CPC (Vita Mark II ceramic / Cerec III) were placed. CGPC were inserted using a conventional cement (Harvard), CPC were adhesively luted to the cavities (Variolink II/Excite). The restorations were clinically rated using the modified USPHS criteria at baseline and one year after placement.

Results: All patients were available for the one-year recall. The mean patient age was 38 (25-54) years. 29 (100%) of the CGPC and 14 (48.3%) of the CPC were placed in molars, 15 (51.7%) of the CPC were placed in premolars. All restorations were in function without need for intervention. With respect to marginal adaptation, 25 (86.2%) of the CGPC and 27 (93.1%) of the CPC were rated Alpha after 1year. No marginal discoloration or recurrent caries were detected in any of the restorations. Postoperative hypersensitivity remained for 1 CGPC (3.4%) and one CPC (3.4%) after one year. No significant differences between CGPC and CPC were determined after one year.

Conclusion: From these data it can be concluded that CPC may provide an esthetic and tissue conservative alternative to CGPC.

Back to the Scientific Program Program
Back to the Joint Meeting of the Continental European, Israeli, and Scandinavian (NOF) Divisions of the IADR (August 25 -- 28, 2004)

Top Level Search