Three-year clinical performance of cast gold vs ceramic partial crowns
Abstract Cast gold partial crowns (CGPC) and partial ceramic crowns (PCC) are both accepted for restoring posterior teeth with extended lesions today. However, as esthetics in dentistry becomes increasingly important, CGPC are being progressively replaced by PCC. The aim of the present prospective s...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Federlin, M. [verfasserIn] Wagner, J. [verfasserIn] Männer, T. [verfasserIn] Hiller, K.-A. [verfasserIn] Schmalz, G. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2007 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Clinical Oral Investigations - Springer-Verlag, 2001, 11(2007), 4 vom: 01. Nov., Seite 345-352 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:11 ; year:2007 ; number:4 ; day:01 ; month:11 ; pages:345-352 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s00784-007-0158-4 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
SPR007797648 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | SPR007797648 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20201124022303.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 201005s2007 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s00784-007-0158-4 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)SPR007797648 | ||
| 035 | |a (SPR)s00784-007-0158-4-e | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Federlin, M. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Three-year clinical performance of cast gold vs ceramic partial crowns |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2007 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract Cast gold partial crowns (CGPC) and partial ceramic crowns (PCC) are both accepted for restoring posterior teeth with extended lesions today. However, as esthetics in dentistry becomes increasingly important, CGPC are being progressively replaced by PCC. The aim of the present prospective split-mouth study was the comparison of the clinical performance of PCC and CGPC after 3 years of clinical service. Twenty-eight patients (11 men and 17 women) participated in the 3-year recall with a total of 56 restorations. In each patient, one CGPC (Degulor C) and one PCC (Vita Mark II ceramic/Cerec III) had been inserted at baseline. CGPC were placed using a zinc phosphate cement (Harvard); PCC were adhesively luted (Variolink II/Excite). All restorations were clinically assessed using modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after insertion. Twenty-eight CGPC and 14 PCC were placed in molars, and 14 PCC were placed in premolars. Early data were reported previously under the same study design. After 3 years, the evaluation according to USPHS criteria revealed no statistically significant differences between both types of restorations with the exception of marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration: A statistically significant difference within the PCC group (baseline/3 years) was determined for the criterion marginal adaptation. For the 3-year recall period, overall failure was 0% for CGPC and 6.9% for PCC. At 3 years, PCC meet American Dental Association Acceptance Guidelines criteria for tooth-colored restorative materials for posterior teeth. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Partial ceramic crowns |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Cast gold partial crowns |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Clinical evaluation |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a USPHS criteria |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a CEREC III |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wagner, J. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Männer, T. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hiller, K.-A. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Schmalz, G. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Clinical Oral Investigations |d Springer-Verlag, 2001 |g 11(2007), 4 vom: 01. Nov., Seite 345-352 |w (DE-627)SPR007794231 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:11 |g year:2007 |g number:4 |g day:01 |g month:11 |g pages:345-352 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-007-0158-4 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 11 |j 2007 |e 4 |b 01 |c 11 |h 345-352 | ||
| author_variant |
m f mf j w jw t m tm k a h kah g s gs |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
federlinmwagnerjmnnerthillerkaschmalzg:2007----:heyaciiapromnefatodsea |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2007 |
| publishDate |
2007 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s00784-007-0158-4 doi (DE-627)SPR007797648 (SPR)s00784-007-0158-4-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Federlin, M. verfasserin aut Three-year clinical performance of cast gold vs ceramic partial crowns 2007 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Cast gold partial crowns (CGPC) and partial ceramic crowns (PCC) are both accepted for restoring posterior teeth with extended lesions today. However, as esthetics in dentistry becomes increasingly important, CGPC are being progressively replaced by PCC. The aim of the present prospective split-mouth study was the comparison of the clinical performance of PCC and CGPC after 3 years of clinical service. Twenty-eight patients (11 men and 17 women) participated in the 3-year recall with a total of 56 restorations. In each patient, one CGPC (Degulor C) and one PCC (Vita Mark II ceramic/Cerec III) had been inserted at baseline. CGPC were placed using a zinc phosphate cement (Harvard); PCC were adhesively luted (Variolink II/Excite). All restorations were clinically assessed using modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after insertion. Twenty-eight CGPC and 14 PCC were placed in molars, and 14 PCC were placed in premolars. Early data were reported previously under the same study design. After 3 years, the evaluation according to USPHS criteria revealed no statistically significant differences between both types of restorations with the exception of marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration: A statistically significant difference within the PCC group (baseline/3 years) was determined for the criterion marginal adaptation. For the 3-year recall period, overall failure was 0% for CGPC and 6.9% for PCC. At 3 years, PCC meet American Dental Association Acceptance Guidelines criteria for tooth-colored restorative materials for posterior teeth. Partial ceramic crowns (dpeaa)DE-He213 Cast gold partial crowns (dpeaa)DE-He213 Clinical evaluation (dpeaa)DE-He213 USPHS criteria (dpeaa)DE-He213 CEREC III (dpeaa)DE-He213 Wagner, J. verfasserin aut Männer, T. verfasserin aut Hiller, K.-A. verfasserin aut Schmalz, G. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Clinical Oral Investigations Springer-Verlag, 2001 11(2007), 4 vom: 01. Nov., Seite 345-352 (DE-627)SPR007794231 nnns volume:11 year:2007 number:4 day:01 month:11 pages:345-352 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-007-0158-4 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 11 2007 4 01 11 345-352 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s00784-007-0158-4 doi (DE-627)SPR007797648 (SPR)s00784-007-0158-4-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Federlin, M. verfasserin aut Three-year clinical performance of cast gold vs ceramic partial crowns 2007 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Cast gold partial crowns (CGPC) and partial ceramic crowns (PCC) are both accepted for restoring posterior teeth with extended lesions today. However, as esthetics in dentistry becomes increasingly important, CGPC are being progressively replaced by PCC. The aim of the present prospective split-mouth study was the comparison of the clinical performance of PCC and CGPC after 3 years of clinical service. Twenty-eight patients (11 men and 17 women) participated in the 3-year recall with a total of 56 restorations. In each patient, one CGPC (Degulor C) and one PCC (Vita Mark II ceramic/Cerec III) had been inserted at baseline. CGPC were placed using a zinc phosphate cement (Harvard); PCC were adhesively luted (Variolink II/Excite). All restorations were clinically assessed using modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after insertion. Twenty-eight CGPC and 14 PCC were placed in molars, and 14 PCC were placed in premolars. Early data were reported previously under the same study design. After 3 years, the evaluation according to USPHS criteria revealed no statistically significant differences between both types of restorations with the exception of marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration: A statistically significant difference within the PCC group (baseline/3 years) was determined for the criterion marginal adaptation. For the 3-year recall period, overall failure was 0% for CGPC and 6.9% for PCC. At 3 years, PCC meet American Dental Association Acceptance Guidelines criteria for tooth-colored restorative materials for posterior teeth. Partial ceramic crowns (dpeaa)DE-He213 Cast gold partial crowns (dpeaa)DE-He213 Clinical evaluation (dpeaa)DE-He213 USPHS criteria (dpeaa)DE-He213 CEREC III (dpeaa)DE-He213 Wagner, J. verfasserin aut Männer, T. verfasserin aut Hiller, K.-A. verfasserin aut Schmalz, G. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Clinical Oral Investigations Springer-Verlag, 2001 11(2007), 4 vom: 01. Nov., Seite 345-352 (DE-627)SPR007794231 nnns volume:11 year:2007 number:4 day:01 month:11 pages:345-352 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-007-0158-4 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 11 2007 4 01 11 345-352 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s00784-007-0158-4 doi (DE-627)SPR007797648 (SPR)s00784-007-0158-4-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Federlin, M. verfasserin aut Three-year clinical performance of cast gold vs ceramic partial crowns 2007 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Cast gold partial crowns (CGPC) and partial ceramic crowns (PCC) are both accepted for restoring posterior teeth with extended lesions today. However, as esthetics in dentistry becomes increasingly important, CGPC are being progressively replaced by PCC. The aim of the present prospective split-mouth study was the comparison of the clinical performance of PCC and CGPC after 3 years of clinical service. Twenty-eight patients (11 men and 17 women) participated in the 3-year recall with a total of 56 restorations. In each patient, one CGPC (Degulor C) and one PCC (Vita Mark II ceramic/Cerec III) had been inserted at baseline. CGPC were placed using a zinc phosphate cement (Harvard); PCC were adhesively luted (Variolink II/Excite). All restorations were clinically assessed using modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after insertion. Twenty-eight CGPC and 14 PCC were placed in molars, and 14 PCC were placed in premolars. Early data were reported previously under the same study design. After 3 years, the evaluation according to USPHS criteria revealed no statistically significant differences between both types of restorations with the exception of marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration: A statistically significant difference within the PCC group (baseline/3 years) was determined for the criterion marginal adaptation. For the 3-year recall period, overall failure was 0% for CGPC and 6.9% for PCC. At 3 years, PCC meet American Dental Association Acceptance Guidelines criteria for tooth-colored restorative materials for posterior teeth. Partial ceramic crowns (dpeaa)DE-He213 Cast gold partial crowns (dpeaa)DE-He213 Clinical evaluation (dpeaa)DE-He213 USPHS criteria (dpeaa)DE-He213 CEREC III (dpeaa)DE-He213 Wagner, J. verfasserin aut Männer, T. verfasserin aut Hiller, K.-A. verfasserin aut Schmalz, G. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Clinical Oral Investigations Springer-Verlag, 2001 11(2007), 4 vom: 01. Nov., Seite 345-352 (DE-627)SPR007794231 nnns volume:11 year:2007 number:4 day:01 month:11 pages:345-352 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-007-0158-4 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 11 2007 4 01 11 345-352 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s00784-007-0158-4 doi (DE-627)SPR007797648 (SPR)s00784-007-0158-4-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Federlin, M. verfasserin aut Three-year clinical performance of cast gold vs ceramic partial crowns 2007 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Cast gold partial crowns (CGPC) and partial ceramic crowns (PCC) are both accepted for restoring posterior teeth with extended lesions today. However, as esthetics in dentistry becomes increasingly important, CGPC are being progressively replaced by PCC. The aim of the present prospective split-mouth study was the comparison of the clinical performance of PCC and CGPC after 3 years of clinical service. Twenty-eight patients (11 men and 17 women) participated in the 3-year recall with a total of 56 restorations. In each patient, one CGPC (Degulor C) and one PCC (Vita Mark II ceramic/Cerec III) had been inserted at baseline. CGPC were placed using a zinc phosphate cement (Harvard); PCC were adhesively luted (Variolink II/Excite). All restorations were clinically assessed using modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after insertion. Twenty-eight CGPC and 14 PCC were placed in molars, and 14 PCC were placed in premolars. Early data were reported previously under the same study design. After 3 years, the evaluation according to USPHS criteria revealed no statistically significant differences between both types of restorations with the exception of marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration: A statistically significant difference within the PCC group (baseline/3 years) was determined for the criterion marginal adaptation. For the 3-year recall period, overall failure was 0% for CGPC and 6.9% for PCC. At 3 years, PCC meet American Dental Association Acceptance Guidelines criteria for tooth-colored restorative materials for posterior teeth. Partial ceramic crowns (dpeaa)DE-He213 Cast gold partial crowns (dpeaa)DE-He213 Clinical evaluation (dpeaa)DE-He213 USPHS criteria (dpeaa)DE-He213 CEREC III (dpeaa)DE-He213 Wagner, J. verfasserin aut Männer, T. verfasserin aut Hiller, K.-A. verfasserin aut Schmalz, G. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Clinical Oral Investigations Springer-Verlag, 2001 11(2007), 4 vom: 01. Nov., Seite 345-352 (DE-627)SPR007794231 nnns volume:11 year:2007 number:4 day:01 month:11 pages:345-352 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-007-0158-4 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 11 2007 4 01 11 345-352 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s00784-007-0158-4 doi (DE-627)SPR007797648 (SPR)s00784-007-0158-4-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Federlin, M. verfasserin aut Three-year clinical performance of cast gold vs ceramic partial crowns 2007 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Cast gold partial crowns (CGPC) and partial ceramic crowns (PCC) are both accepted for restoring posterior teeth with extended lesions today. However, as esthetics in dentistry becomes increasingly important, CGPC are being progressively replaced by PCC. The aim of the present prospective split-mouth study was the comparison of the clinical performance of PCC and CGPC after 3 years of clinical service. Twenty-eight patients (11 men and 17 women) participated in the 3-year recall with a total of 56 restorations. In each patient, one CGPC (Degulor C) and one PCC (Vita Mark II ceramic/Cerec III) had been inserted at baseline. CGPC were placed using a zinc phosphate cement (Harvard); PCC were adhesively luted (Variolink II/Excite). All restorations were clinically assessed using modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after insertion. Twenty-eight CGPC and 14 PCC were placed in molars, and 14 PCC were placed in premolars. Early data were reported previously under the same study design. After 3 years, the evaluation according to USPHS criteria revealed no statistically significant differences between both types of restorations with the exception of marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration: A statistically significant difference within the PCC group (baseline/3 years) was determined for the criterion marginal adaptation. For the 3-year recall period, overall failure was 0% for CGPC and 6.9% for PCC. At 3 years, PCC meet American Dental Association Acceptance Guidelines criteria for tooth-colored restorative materials for posterior teeth. Partial ceramic crowns (dpeaa)DE-He213 Cast gold partial crowns (dpeaa)DE-He213 Clinical evaluation (dpeaa)DE-He213 USPHS criteria (dpeaa)DE-He213 CEREC III (dpeaa)DE-He213 Wagner, J. verfasserin aut Männer, T. verfasserin aut Hiller, K.-A. verfasserin aut Schmalz, G. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Clinical Oral Investigations Springer-Verlag, 2001 11(2007), 4 vom: 01. Nov., Seite 345-352 (DE-627)SPR007794231 nnns volume:11 year:2007 number:4 day:01 month:11 pages:345-352 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-007-0158-4 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 11 2007 4 01 11 345-352 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Clinical Oral Investigations 11(2007), 4 vom: 01. Nov., Seite 345-352 volume:11 year:2007 number:4 day:01 month:11 pages:345-352 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Clinical Oral Investigations 11(2007), 4 vom: 01. Nov., Seite 345-352 volume:11 year:2007 number:4 day:01 month:11 pages:345-352 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Partial ceramic crowns Cast gold partial crowns Clinical evaluation USPHS criteria CEREC III |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Clinical Oral Investigations |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Federlin, M. @@aut@@ Wagner, J. @@aut@@ Männer, T. @@aut@@ Hiller, K.-A. @@aut@@ Schmalz, G. @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2007-11-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
SPR007794231 |
| id |
SPR007797648 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR007797648</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20201124022303.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201005s2007 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s00784-007-0158-4</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR007797648</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s00784-007-0158-4-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Federlin, M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Three-year clinical performance of cast gold vs ceramic partial crowns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Cast gold partial crowns (CGPC) and partial ceramic crowns (PCC) are both accepted for restoring posterior teeth with extended lesions today. However, as esthetics in dentistry becomes increasingly important, CGPC are being progressively replaced by PCC. The aim of the present prospective split-mouth study was the comparison of the clinical performance of PCC and CGPC after 3 years of clinical service. Twenty-eight patients (11 men and 17 women) participated in the 3-year recall with a total of 56 restorations. In each patient, one CGPC (Degulor C) and one PCC (Vita Mark II ceramic/Cerec III) had been inserted at baseline. CGPC were placed using a zinc phosphate cement (Harvard); PCC were adhesively luted (Variolink II/Excite). All restorations were clinically assessed using modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after insertion. Twenty-eight CGPC and 14 PCC were placed in molars, and 14 PCC were placed in premolars. Early data were reported previously under the same study design. After 3 years, the evaluation according to USPHS criteria revealed no statistically significant differences between both types of restorations with the exception of marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration: A statistically significant difference within the PCC group (baseline/3 years) was determined for the criterion marginal adaptation. For the 3-year recall period, overall failure was 0% for CGPC and 6.9% for PCC. At 3 years, PCC meet American Dental Association Acceptance Guidelines criteria for tooth-colored restorative materials for posterior teeth.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Partial ceramic crowns</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Cast gold partial crowns</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Clinical evaluation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">USPHS criteria</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">CEREC III</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wagner, J.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Männer, T.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hiller, K.-A.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Schmalz, G.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Clinical Oral Investigations</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer-Verlag, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">11(2007), 4 vom: 01. Nov., Seite 345-352</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)SPR007794231</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:11</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2007</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4</subfield><subfield code="g">day:01</subfield><subfield code="g">month:11</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:345-352</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-007-0158-4</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">11</subfield><subfield code="j">2007</subfield><subfield code="e">4</subfield><subfield code="b">01</subfield><subfield code="c">11</subfield><subfield code="h">345-352</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Federlin, M. |
| spellingShingle |
Federlin, M. misc Partial ceramic crowns misc Cast gold partial crowns misc Clinical evaluation misc USPHS criteria misc CEREC III Three-year clinical performance of cast gold vs ceramic partial crowns |
| authorStr |
Federlin, M. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)SPR007794231 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut aut aut |
| collection |
springer |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| topic_title |
Three-year clinical performance of cast gold vs ceramic partial crowns Partial ceramic crowns (dpeaa)DE-He213 Cast gold partial crowns (dpeaa)DE-He213 Clinical evaluation (dpeaa)DE-He213 USPHS criteria (dpeaa)DE-He213 CEREC III (dpeaa)DE-He213 |
| topic |
misc Partial ceramic crowns misc Cast gold partial crowns misc Clinical evaluation misc USPHS criteria misc CEREC III |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc Partial ceramic crowns misc Cast gold partial crowns misc Clinical evaluation misc USPHS criteria misc CEREC III |
| topic_browse |
misc Partial ceramic crowns misc Cast gold partial crowns misc Clinical evaluation misc USPHS criteria misc CEREC III |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Clinical Oral Investigations |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
SPR007794231 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Clinical Oral Investigations |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)SPR007794231 |
| title |
Three-year clinical performance of cast gold vs ceramic partial crowns |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)SPR007797648 (SPR)s00784-007-0158-4-e |
| title_full |
Three-year clinical performance of cast gold vs ceramic partial crowns |
| author_sort |
Federlin, M. |
| journal |
Clinical Oral Investigations |
| journalStr |
Clinical Oral Investigations |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2007 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
345 |
| author_browse |
Federlin, M. Wagner, J. Männer, T. Hiller, K.-A. Schmalz, G. |
| container_volume |
11 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Federlin, M. |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s00784-007-0158-4 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
three-year clinical performance of cast gold vs ceramic partial crowns |
| title_auth |
Three-year clinical performance of cast gold vs ceramic partial crowns |
| abstract |
Abstract Cast gold partial crowns (CGPC) and partial ceramic crowns (PCC) are both accepted for restoring posterior teeth with extended lesions today. However, as esthetics in dentistry becomes increasingly important, CGPC are being progressively replaced by PCC. The aim of the present prospective split-mouth study was the comparison of the clinical performance of PCC and CGPC after 3 years of clinical service. Twenty-eight patients (11 men and 17 women) participated in the 3-year recall with a total of 56 restorations. In each patient, one CGPC (Degulor C) and one PCC (Vita Mark II ceramic/Cerec III) had been inserted at baseline. CGPC were placed using a zinc phosphate cement (Harvard); PCC were adhesively luted (Variolink II/Excite). All restorations were clinically assessed using modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after insertion. Twenty-eight CGPC and 14 PCC were placed in molars, and 14 PCC were placed in premolars. Early data were reported previously under the same study design. After 3 years, the evaluation according to USPHS criteria revealed no statistically significant differences between both types of restorations with the exception of marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration: A statistically significant difference within the PCC group (baseline/3 years) was determined for the criterion marginal adaptation. For the 3-year recall period, overall failure was 0% for CGPC and 6.9% for PCC. At 3 years, PCC meet American Dental Association Acceptance Guidelines criteria for tooth-colored restorative materials for posterior teeth. |
| abstractGer |
Abstract Cast gold partial crowns (CGPC) and partial ceramic crowns (PCC) are both accepted for restoring posterior teeth with extended lesions today. However, as esthetics in dentistry becomes increasingly important, CGPC are being progressively replaced by PCC. The aim of the present prospective split-mouth study was the comparison of the clinical performance of PCC and CGPC after 3 years of clinical service. Twenty-eight patients (11 men and 17 women) participated in the 3-year recall with a total of 56 restorations. In each patient, one CGPC (Degulor C) and one PCC (Vita Mark II ceramic/Cerec III) had been inserted at baseline. CGPC were placed using a zinc phosphate cement (Harvard); PCC were adhesively luted (Variolink II/Excite). All restorations were clinically assessed using modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after insertion. Twenty-eight CGPC and 14 PCC were placed in molars, and 14 PCC were placed in premolars. Early data were reported previously under the same study design. After 3 years, the evaluation according to USPHS criteria revealed no statistically significant differences between both types of restorations with the exception of marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration: A statistically significant difference within the PCC group (baseline/3 years) was determined for the criterion marginal adaptation. For the 3-year recall period, overall failure was 0% for CGPC and 6.9% for PCC. At 3 years, PCC meet American Dental Association Acceptance Guidelines criteria for tooth-colored restorative materials for posterior teeth. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract Cast gold partial crowns (CGPC) and partial ceramic crowns (PCC) are both accepted for restoring posterior teeth with extended lesions today. However, as esthetics in dentistry becomes increasingly important, CGPC are being progressively replaced by PCC. The aim of the present prospective split-mouth study was the comparison of the clinical performance of PCC and CGPC after 3 years of clinical service. Twenty-eight patients (11 men and 17 women) participated in the 3-year recall with a total of 56 restorations. In each patient, one CGPC (Degulor C) and one PCC (Vita Mark II ceramic/Cerec III) had been inserted at baseline. CGPC were placed using a zinc phosphate cement (Harvard); PCC were adhesively luted (Variolink II/Excite). All restorations were clinically assessed using modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after insertion. Twenty-eight CGPC and 14 PCC were placed in molars, and 14 PCC were placed in premolars. Early data were reported previously under the same study design. After 3 years, the evaluation according to USPHS criteria revealed no statistically significant differences between both types of restorations with the exception of marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration: A statistically significant difference within the PCC group (baseline/3 years) was determined for the criterion marginal adaptation. For the 3-year recall period, overall failure was 0% for CGPC and 6.9% for PCC. At 3 years, PCC meet American Dental Association Acceptance Guidelines criteria for tooth-colored restorative materials for posterior teeth. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER |
| container_issue |
4 |
| title_short |
Three-year clinical performance of cast gold vs ceramic partial crowns |
| url |
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-007-0158-4 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Wagner, J. Männer, T. Hiller, K.-A. Schmalz, G. |
| author2Str |
Wagner, J. Männer, T. Hiller, K.-A. Schmalz, G. |
| ppnlink |
SPR007794231 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s00784-007-0158-4 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T15:18:41.903Z |
| _version_ |
1803571609646137344 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR007797648</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20201124022303.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201005s2007 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s00784-007-0158-4</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR007797648</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s00784-007-0158-4-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Federlin, M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Three-year clinical performance of cast gold vs ceramic partial crowns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Cast gold partial crowns (CGPC) and partial ceramic crowns (PCC) are both accepted for restoring posterior teeth with extended lesions today. However, as esthetics in dentistry becomes increasingly important, CGPC are being progressively replaced by PCC. The aim of the present prospective split-mouth study was the comparison of the clinical performance of PCC and CGPC after 3 years of clinical service. Twenty-eight patients (11 men and 17 women) participated in the 3-year recall with a total of 56 restorations. In each patient, one CGPC (Degulor C) and one PCC (Vita Mark II ceramic/Cerec III) had been inserted at baseline. CGPC were placed using a zinc phosphate cement (Harvard); PCC were adhesively luted (Variolink II/Excite). All restorations were clinically assessed using modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after insertion. Twenty-eight CGPC and 14 PCC were placed in molars, and 14 PCC were placed in premolars. Early data were reported previously under the same study design. After 3 years, the evaluation according to USPHS criteria revealed no statistically significant differences between both types of restorations with the exception of marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration: A statistically significant difference within the PCC group (baseline/3 years) was determined for the criterion marginal adaptation. For the 3-year recall period, overall failure was 0% for CGPC and 6.9% for PCC. At 3 years, PCC meet American Dental Association Acceptance Guidelines criteria for tooth-colored restorative materials for posterior teeth.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Partial ceramic crowns</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Cast gold partial crowns</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Clinical evaluation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">USPHS criteria</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">CEREC III</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wagner, J.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Männer, T.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hiller, K.-A.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Schmalz, G.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Clinical Oral Investigations</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer-Verlag, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">11(2007), 4 vom: 01. Nov., Seite 345-352</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)SPR007794231</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:11</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2007</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4</subfield><subfield code="g">day:01</subfield><subfield code="g">month:11</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:345-352</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-007-0158-4</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">11</subfield><subfield code="j">2007</subfield><subfield code="e">4</subfield><subfield code="b">01</subfield><subfield code="c">11</subfield><subfield code="h">345-352</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.40285 |