10-Year Clinical Comparative Study of Ceramic and Composite Veneered Metal Crowns

The rejection of composite veneerings in fixed partial dentures is primarily caused by the inadequacy of the bonds between the metal framework and the composite veneering. The development of improved veneering composites necessitates an investigation of their clinical suitability compared with ceramic materials. Nineteen patients with at least two suitable, adjacent natural teeth for crowning were treated with 64 high noble alloy crowns. The adjacent crowns were veneered with ceramic (IPS inline) and composite materials (SR Adoro). Seven follow-up examinations were carried out over a period of 10 years. The crowns were investigated for mechanical defects, periodontal parameters, and discolorations. The survival rates of the ceramic veneered metal crowns (CeMCs) and composite veneered metal crowns (CoMCs) at the 10-year follow-up were 87.1 and 87.9%, respectively. The success rates of the crowns after 10 years were 83.9% for CeMCs and 51.5% for CoMCs (log-rank test, p = 0.009). No significant differences between the groups were found in the periodontal parameters (Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance, ANOVA p > 0.05). After 10 years, discoloration patterns of the two materials differed significantly (Mann-Whitney-U-test, p = 0.017). Thus, despite the improvements associated with CoMCs, CeMCs remain the gold standard for veneered metal crowns.Keywords Mechanical Complications Fixed Partial Dentures Composite Veneerings Ceramic Veneerings Discolorations Periodontal Parameter