|
| All-Metal (e.g. Gold Alloy) |
|
|
|
|
| Advantages |
| |
Metal occlusal surfaces protect weak cusps and cause minimal wear of opposing dentition |
| |
Excellent clinical longevity |
|
|
| Considerations |
| |
Contraindicated for patients with metal allergies or concerns about metal (ref. 11) |
| |
Esthetics may be unacceptable for some patients |
| |
Conservative tooth preparation |
|
|
| Porcelain Fused to Metal (PFM) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Advantages |
| |
Excellent esthetics possible |
| |
Predictable service and clinical longevity |
| |
Versatility (single units to long span bridges) |
|
| (ref. 12) |
|
| Considerations |
| |
The possibility for metal exposed margins. Restorations may appear chalky, opaque or gray with time |
| |
Contraindicated for patients with metal allergies or concerns about metal |
|
| (ref. 13) |
| May wear opposing dentition |
|
| All-Ceramic and Composite Resin Indirect Restorative Materials |
|
|
|
| Advantages |
| |
High esthetic possibilities. No metal exposed margins. No chalky, opaque or gray appearance |
| |
Non-metal for patients with metal allergies or for those who do not want metal in their mouth |
|
| (ref. 15) |
|
|
| Considerations |
| |
Long-term clinical trial results are not available (ref. 16) |
| |
Cementation is more technique-sensitive and time consuming than for conventional crowns (ref. 16) |
| |
Occlusal adjustments are made after cementation. If the cemented restoration does not fit, removal from the tooth may be extremely difficult (ref. 16) |
| |
Gingival irritation is possible given inadequately finished margins (ref. 16) |
| |
The potential for higher fracture rates in posterior teeth (ref. 12) |
| |
May wear the opposing dentition (ref. 17) |
| |
Contraindicated for: |
|
| - |
Preparations with short clinical crown height |
| - |
Placement in posterior, stress bearing areas |
| - |
For bruxers, clenchers, or patients with no canine guidance |
| (ref. 16) |
|
|