Clinical performance of monolithic polymer-infiltrated ceramic and lithium disilicate posterior crowns: A controlled, randomized, and double-blind clinical trial

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:The success rate of monolithic polymer-infiltrated ceramic posterior crowns after 1 year is unclear. PURPOSE:The purpose of this controlled, randomized, and double-blind clinical trial was to evaluate the performance of posterior complete crowns in polymer-infiltrated and lithium disilicate ceramics and to assess the impact of oral rehabilitation on esthetic satisfaction, quality of life, and periodontal health. MATERIAL AND METHODS:A total of 33 crowns were provided in 18 participants allocated to 2 groups: Control (Lithium disilicate-IPS e.max CAD; Ivoclar AG) and Experimental (Polymer-infiltrated ceramic-Vita Enamic; Vita Zahnfabrik). The crowns were evaluated before treatment (T0) and after 1 (T1), 6 (T2), and 12 (T3) months by using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria, visual analog scales (VASs), oral impacts on daily performances (OIDP), and periodontal parameters. Survival analysis was performed by using Kaplan-Meier followed by the log-rank test (α=.05). The OIDP and USPHS data were analyzed descriptively while VASs for esthetic satisfaction and periodontal parameters were statistically evaluated by using the Mann-Whitney Friedman, and Wilcoxon post hoc tests. RESULTS:For 18 participants with a mean age of 47.2 years, 19 crowns were manufactured in lithium disilicate and 14 in polymer-infiltrated ceramic. The Kaplan-Meier test revealed similar survival rates of 92.5% for polymer-infiltrated ceramic and 94.7% for lithium disilicate (P>.05). The analysis of periodontal parameters revealed a significant increase in the bleeding on probing (BOP) for polymer-infiltrated ceramics (P=.032) but for lithium disilicate, it was not significant (P=.387). CONCLUSIONS:Survival rates between the evaluated materials were not significantly different, with acceptable clinical performance after 1 year of follow-up.