Long-term performance of posterior InCeram Alumina crowns cemented with different luting agents: a prospective, randomized clinical split-mouth study over 5 years

Abstract

This prospective, randomized clinical split-mouth study investigated the 5-year performance of InCeram Alumina posterior crowns cemented with three different luting cements. 4-META- and MDP-based cements were used for adhesive luting. Glass ionomer cement served as control. Sixty patients were treated with 149 (n = 62 Panavia F/MDP; n = 59 SuperBond-C&B/4-META; n = 28 Ketac Cem/glass ionomer) InCeram Alumina crowns on vital molars and premolars in a comparable position. Follow-up examinations were performed annually up to 5 years after crown placement using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis comprised secondary caries, clinically unacceptable fractures, root canal treatment and debonding. Kaplan-Meier success rate included restorations with minimal crevices, tolerable color deviations (<1 Vitashade), and clinically acceptable fractures. Logistic regression models with a random intercept were fitted. The 5-year Kaplan-Meier survival probabilities were: SuperBond-C&B 88.7 %, Panavia F 82.8 %, Ketac Cem 80.1 % with no significant difference (p = .813). Endodontical treatment was carried out on 7.4 % of all abutment teeth, and 5.4 % revealed secondary caries. Unacceptable ceramic fractures were observed in 7.4 %. Debonding was a rare complication (1.3 %). The 5 year Kaplan-Meier success rate was 91.6 % for SuperBond-C&B-, 87.4 % for Ketac Cem- and 86.3 % for Panavia F-bonded restorations with no significant difference (p = .624). All cement types showed significant marginal deterioration over time (p < .0001). Posterior InCeram Alumina crowns showed acceptable long-term survival and success rates independent of luting agent used. Ceramic fractures, endodontical treatments and secondary caries were the most frequent failures. Glass-infiltrated Alumina crowns in combination with adhesive as well as conventional cementation can be considered as a reliable treatment option in posterior teeth.