# Comparison of Short-Term Restorative Effects and Periodontal Health Status of Restorations Made of Different Materials in Full-Crown Restoration of Mandibular Premolar Tooth Defects

Authors: Liyan Zhang; Zhang Tao; Xiaoxia Wang
Journal: Disease Markers
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

Purpose. To compare the short-term restorative effect and periodontal health status of restorations with different materials in full-crown restoration of mandibular premolar tooth defects. Methods. A total of 105 cases (123 affected teeth) of mandibular premolar tooth defects who visited the Department of Stomatology between January 2019 and January 2020 were selected, of which 58 cases (68 affected teeth) restored with cobalt-chromium alloy porcelain crowns were included in the metal-ceramic crown (MCC) group and 47 cases (55 affected teeth) repaired by zirconium dioxide all-ceramic crowns were assigned to the zirconia crown (ZC) group. The restorative effect, inflammatory factors (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α)) and periodontal health indicators (human cartilage glycoprotein-39 (YKL-40), resistin, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and alkaline phosphatase (ALP)) after treatment, and the occurrence of adverse reactions were compared between the two groups. Results. The ZC group outperformed the MCC group in terms of margin fitness, restoration fracture, gingival condition, and color matching. After restoration, hs-CRP and TNF-α were statistically decreased in both groups, while YKL-40, resistin, AST, and ALP were significantly increased; and compared with the MCC group, hs-CRP, TNF-α, YKL-40, resistin, AST, and ALP were lower in the ZC group. The ZC group also scored statistically higher in retention effect, aesthetic effect, masticatory function, voice function, and comfort. Moreover, the ZC group had a higher total effective rate and a lower incidence of adverse reactions than the MCC group, with statistical significance. Conclusions. Zirconia dioxide all-ceramic crowns contribute to a better short-term restorative effect in the full-crown restoration of mandibular premolar tooth defects, with little impact on periodontal health and high patient satisfaction, which deserves popularization and application.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Mandibular molar defect is a common disease in oral and maxillofacial surgery [1]. Mandibular molars play an important role in oral mastication, but the cleaning effect is not good due to the presence of pits and furrows on the occlusal surface, which predispose them to oral health problem-induced tooth defects that often require root canal therapy [2, 3]. After the procedure, the pulp loses its vitality and the tooth tissue becomes brittle gradually, so crown restoration is needed to prevent tooth fracture [4]. Full-crown restoration is a common crown restoration method that can cover the entire crown surface and restore the shape, function, and aesthetics of the defective teeth, which is highly accepted by patients [5]. As dental restoration technology constantly advances, various dental prosthetic materials have been applied in dental restoration [6]. Of them, cobalt-chromium alloy porcelain and zirconium dioxide all-ceramic crowns are currently the two commonly used dental restorative materials in clinical practice [7]. The former has a long clinical application time, feasible posttreatment periodontal tissue integrity, and hard-to-break crowns, while the latter has good transparency and mechanical properties and less dental tissue preparation [8, 9]. As we all know, the root canal anatomy of mandibular premolars is complicated, with single root canal as the most common anatomical form. Moreover, the root canals are relatively thin and narrow, most of which are subjected to vertical load during occlusion, which is easy to cause stress fatigue and fracture of the tooth neck. Therefore, there are high clinical requirements for defect repair materials. At present, the clinical research on the restoration materials for tooth defects mainly focuses on the restoration materials themselves, ignoring the position of the restoration, which is of insufficient reference value. Accordingly, this study enrolled patients who underwent full-crown restoration for mandibular premolar tooth defects in the Department of Stomatology from January 2019 to January 2020 to compare the differences of different restoration materials from recent restorative effects and periodontal health indicators, so as to provide reference for clinical oral restoration.


## 2. Materials and Methods

### 2.1. Clinical Data

From January 2019 to January 2020, 105 cases (123 affected teeth) of mandibular premolar tooth defects admitted to the Department of Stomatology were selected, of which 58 cases (68 affected teeth) were restored with cobalt-chromium alloy porcelain crowns (metal-ceramic crown group (MCC group)) and 47 cases (55 affected teeth) were repaired with zirconium dioxide all-ceramic crowns (zirconia crown group (ZC group)). This project was implemented after being approved by the Ethics Committee of the Second hospital of Shanxi Medical University Drug, and the informed consent of patients was obtained.Inclusion criteria: (1) age: 18-65; (2) severe defect and poor retention and resistance of mandibular premolars; (3) normal dental tissue except the affected teeth; (4) good oral hygiene habits; (5) complete case data; (6) high treatment compliance.Exclusion criteria: (1) pregnant women with systemic diseases such as diabetes, rheumatism/rheumatoid diseases, and cardiovascular diseases; (2) those with occlusal dysfunction such as cracked teeth, clenching teeth, and night molars; (3) those who are allergic to repair materials; (4) those who had taken any drugs in the last six months that might affect the results of this study.


### 2.2. Methods

ZC group: the dirt on the surface of the teeth was cleaned first. Then, gingival retraction lines were used to displace the gingival sulcus and gingival margin to protect the periodontal tissue, and dental preparation was performed to avoid damage to adjacent teeth. After local infiltration and anesthesia, about 1.5 mm of the labial surface and 1.0 mm of the lingual surface of the affected teeth were removed, with a convergence angle of 6-10°. Subsequently, the shoulder was shaped concavely oblique with an obtuse angle, with the width of the lip and neck about 0.8 mm and the shoulders on the labial and lingual sides located 0.5 mm between the upper and lower gingiva. The mold was then taken to make the base crown. After color matching, the restoration was sent to the technical center for processing and treated with wol-cerwoulm and sintering with special ceramic powder. After a satisfactory try-in, the prosthesis was bonded and fixed with Dentsply resin cement. MCC group: routine tooth preparation was performed. Deep and shallow concave shoulders were made on the buccal side of the teeth since there should be a common path of insertion. After mocking up to make the restoration, the metal base crown was made by investment, embedding, and casting, and the surface porcelain layer was formed by wol-ceram and sintering. After trial wearing, it was bonded and fixed with 3M glass ionomer cement.


### 2.3. Outcome Measures

#### 2.3.1. Evaluation of Restorative Effect

Before and 12 months after restoration, the restorative effect was evaluated from the following domains by referring to the criteria for restoration evaluation of the Public Health Service [10]: (Ι) margin fitness (A: the restoration and the tooth are well-fitted with no gap between them; B: the probe is stuck but there is no obvious crack; C: there are obvious cracks, with dentin or adhesive visible to the naked eye); (II) fracture of the prosthesis (A: integrity of the prosthesis: B: slight defect that does not affect the overall appearance; C: obvious porcelain collapse, breakage, shedding, etc.); (ΙII) gingival status (A: healthy without atrophy; B: gingivitis, with a small amount of bleeding on probing; C: red and swollen gums with severe bleeding); and (IV) color matching (A: no color difference with neighboring teeth; B: slight color difference with adjacent teeth; C: serious color difference with adjacent teeth).


#### 2.3.2. Inflammatory Factors

The day before treatment and one day after repair, 5 mL venous blood was drawn on an empty stomach, centrifuged (1500 r/min, 10 min) to obtain serum, and refrigerated at -70°C for later use. Serum hypersensitive C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) concentrations were measured via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) [11], strictly following the instructions of human hs-CRP and TNF-α ELISA kits (Walan Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China, ABE11427, ABE10038).


#### 2.3.3. Gingival Crevicular Fluid Inflammation-Related Indicators

The gingival crevicular fluid of patients was collected before and 12 months after restoration to measure human cartilage glycoprotein-39 (HCgp39/YKL-40), resistin, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels.


#### 2.3.4. Patient Satisfaction

Referring to the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) [12], patient satisfaction was evaluated from five aspects of retention effect, aesthetic effect, masticatory function, voice function, and comfort, each scored on a nine-point scale. The closer the score is to 10, the better the satisfaction.


#### 2.3.5. Clinical Efficacy

The clinical efficacy was tested after treatment. Markedly effective: after treatment, the patients’ dentition loss was basically repaired, with basically recovered masticatory function and no loosening or falling off. Effective: after treatment, the dentition defect recovered well, with slight loosening, improved masticatory function, and occasional pain. Ineffective: the prosthesis for dentition loss loosened or even fell off after treatment, and the masticatory function did not improve. The overall response rate (ORR) was calculated asmarkedlyeffective+effectivecases/totalcases×100%.


#### 2.3.6. Adverse Reactions (ARs)

The ARs such as gingivitis, abutment loosening, and periapical periodontitis were observed during treatment.


### 2.4. Statistical Processing

SPSSv26.0 (IBM Corp.) was used for data processing. The quantitative data (expressed as x¯±s) and categorical data (represented by n%) were analyzed using t-test and χ2, respectively. Rank sum test was used to for ranked data comparison. The difference was statistically significant when P<0.05.


## 2.1. Clinical Data

From January 2019 to January 2020, 105 cases (123 affected teeth) of mandibular premolar tooth defects admitted to the Department of Stomatology were selected, of which 58 cases (68 affected teeth) were restored with cobalt-chromium alloy porcelain crowns (metal-ceramic crown group (MCC group)) and 47 cases (55 affected teeth) were repaired with zirconium dioxide all-ceramic crowns (zirconia crown group (ZC group)). This project was implemented after being approved by the Ethics Committee of the Second hospital of Shanxi Medical University Drug, and the informed consent of patients was obtained.Inclusion criteria: (1) age: 18-65; (2) severe defect and poor retention and resistance of mandibular premolars; (3) normal dental tissue except the affected teeth; (4) good oral hygiene habits; (5) complete case data; (6) high treatment compliance.Exclusion criteria: (1) pregnant women with systemic diseases such as diabetes, rheumatism/rheumatoid diseases, and cardiovascular diseases; (2) those with occlusal dysfunction such as cracked teeth, clenching teeth, and night molars; (3) those who are allergic to repair materials; (4) those who had taken any drugs in the last six months that might affect the results of this study.


## 2.2. Methods

ZC group: the dirt on the surface of the teeth was cleaned first. Then, gingival retraction lines were used to displace the gingival sulcus and gingival margin to protect the periodontal tissue, and dental preparation was performed to avoid damage to adjacent teeth. After local infiltration and anesthesia, about 1.5 mm of the labial surface and 1.0 mm of the lingual surface of the affected teeth were removed, with a convergence angle of 6-10°. Subsequently, the shoulder was shaped concavely oblique with an obtuse angle, with the width of the lip and neck about 0.8 mm and the shoulders on the labial and lingual sides located 0.5 mm between the upper and lower gingiva. The mold was then taken to make the base crown. After color matching, the restoration was sent to the technical center for processing and treated with wol-cerwoulm and sintering with special ceramic powder. After a satisfactory try-in, the prosthesis was bonded and fixed with Dentsply resin cement. MCC group: routine tooth preparation was performed. Deep and shallow concave shoulders were made on the buccal side of the teeth since there should be a common path of insertion. After mocking up to make the restoration, the metal base crown was made by investment, embedding, and casting, and the surface porcelain layer was formed by wol-ceram and sintering. After trial wearing, it was bonded and fixed with 3M glass ionomer cement.


## 2.3. Outcome Measures

### 2.3.1. Evaluation of Restorative Effect

Before and 12 months after restoration, the restorative effect was evaluated from the following domains by referring to the criteria for restoration evaluation of the Public Health Service [10]: (Ι) margin fitness (A: the restoration and the tooth are well-fitted with no gap between them; B: the probe is stuck but there is no obvious crack; C: there are obvious cracks, with dentin or adhesive visible to the naked eye); (II) fracture of the prosthesis (A: integrity of the prosthesis: B: slight defect that does not affect the overall appearance; C: obvious porcelain collapse, breakage, shedding, etc.); (ΙII) gingival status (A: healthy without atrophy; B: gingivitis, with a small amount of bleeding on probing; C: red and swollen gums with severe bleeding); and (IV) color matching (A: no color difference with neighboring teeth; B: slight color difference with adjacent teeth; C: serious color difference with adjacent teeth).


### 2.3.2. Inflammatory Factors

The day before treatment and one day after repair, 5 mL venous blood was drawn on an empty stomach, centrifuged (1500 r/min, 10 min) to obtain serum, and refrigerated at -70°C for later use. Serum hypersensitive C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) concentrations were measured via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) [11], strictly following the instructions of human hs-CRP and TNF-α ELISA kits (Walan Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China, ABE11427, ABE10038).


### 2.3.3. Gingival Crevicular Fluid Inflammation-Related Indicators

The gingival crevicular fluid of patients was collected before and 12 months after restoration to measure human cartilage glycoprotein-39 (HCgp39/YKL-40), resistin, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels.


### 2.3.4. Patient Satisfaction

Referring to the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) [12], patient satisfaction was evaluated from five aspects of retention effect, aesthetic effect, masticatory function, voice function, and comfort, each scored on a nine-point scale. The closer the score is to 10, the better the satisfaction.


### 2.3.5. Clinical Efficacy

The clinical efficacy was tested after treatment. Markedly effective: after treatment, the patients’ dentition loss was basically repaired, with basically recovered masticatory function and no loosening or falling off. Effective: after treatment, the dentition defect recovered well, with slight loosening, improved masticatory function, and occasional pain. Ineffective: the prosthesis for dentition loss loosened or even fell off after treatment, and the masticatory function did not improve. The overall response rate (ORR) was calculated asmarkedlyeffective+effectivecases/totalcases×100%.


### 2.3.6. Adverse Reactions (ARs)

The ARs such as gingivitis, abutment loosening, and periapical periodontitis were observed during treatment.


## 2.3.1. Evaluation of Restorative Effect

Before and 12 months after restoration, the restorative effect was evaluated from the following domains by referring to the criteria for restoration evaluation of the Public Health Service [10]: (Ι) margin fitness (A: the restoration and the tooth are well-fitted with no gap between them; B: the probe is stuck but there is no obvious crack; C: there are obvious cracks, with dentin or adhesive visible to the naked eye); (II) fracture of the prosthesis (A: integrity of the prosthesis: B: slight defect that does not affect the overall appearance; C: obvious porcelain collapse, breakage, shedding, etc.); (ΙII) gingival status (A: healthy without atrophy; B: gingivitis, with a small amount of bleeding on probing; C: red and swollen gums with severe bleeding); and (IV) color matching (A: no color difference with neighboring teeth; B: slight color difference with adjacent teeth; C: serious color difference with adjacent teeth).


## 2.3.2. Inflammatory Factors

The day before treatment and one day after repair, 5 mL venous blood was drawn on an empty stomach, centrifuged (1500 r/min, 10 min) to obtain serum, and refrigerated at -70°C for later use. Serum hypersensitive C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) concentrations were measured via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) [11], strictly following the instructions of human hs-CRP and TNF-α ELISA kits (Walan Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China, ABE11427, ABE10038).


## 2.3.3. Gingival Crevicular Fluid Inflammation-Related Indicators

The gingival crevicular fluid of patients was collected before and 12 months after restoration to measure human cartilage glycoprotein-39 (HCgp39/YKL-40), resistin, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels.


## 2.3.4. Patient Satisfaction

Referring to the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) [12], patient satisfaction was evaluated from five aspects of retention effect, aesthetic effect, masticatory function, voice function, and comfort, each scored on a nine-point scale. The closer the score is to 10, the better the satisfaction.


## 2.3.5. Clinical Efficacy

The clinical efficacy was tested after treatment. Markedly effective: after treatment, the patients’ dentition loss was basically repaired, with basically recovered masticatory function and no loosening or falling off. Effective: after treatment, the dentition defect recovered well, with slight loosening, improved masticatory function, and occasional pain. Ineffective: the prosthesis for dentition loss loosened or even fell off after treatment, and the masticatory function did not improve. The overall response rate (ORR) was calculated asmarkedlyeffective+effectivecases/totalcases×100%.


## 2.3.6. Adverse Reactions (ARs)

The ARs such as gingivitis, abutment loosening, and periapical periodontitis were observed during treatment.


## 2.4. Statistical Processing

SPSSv26.0 (IBM Corp.) was used for data processing. The quantitative data (expressed as x¯±s) and categorical data (represented by n%) were analyzed using t-test and χ2, respectively. Rank sum test was used to for ranked data comparison. The difference was statistically significant when P<0.05.


## 3. Results

### 3.1. Comparison of Patients’ General Information

The MCC group and the ZC group were not statistically different in sex, age, and the proportion of single condyle defect (P>0.05) Table 1.Table 1
Comparison of general information between the two groups [n%, x¯±s].
GroupsnGender (male/female)Age (years old)Single condyle defect/casesMCC group5833/2539.01±8.4548ZC group4725/2237.91±9.7839χ2/t value0.1440.6180.001P value0.7040.5380.976


### 3.2. Comparison of Inflammatory Factors before and after Treatment

Significant differences were present in various inflammatory factors in both groups after treatment compared with the levels before treatment (P<0.05), and compared with the MCC group, hs-CRP and TNF-α concentrations were lower in the ZC group after treatment, with statistical significance (P<0.05) Figure 1.Figure 1
Inflammatory factors. (a) hs-CRP: in both groups, there was significant difference in the level of hs-CRP after treatment compared with the level before treatment. After treatment, the hs-CRP level in the zirconia crown (ZC) group was lower than that in the metal-ceramic crown (MCC) group. (b) TNF-α: in both groups, there was significant difference in TNF-α level after treatment compared with the level before treatment. After treatment, the hs-CRP level in the ZC group was lower than that in the MCC group. Note: ∗ indicates P<0.05vs. the zirconia crown group; # indicates P<0.05vs. before treatment.
(a)(b)


### 3.3. Evaluation of Restorative Effects

Most of the patients in the ZC group were grade A in terms of margin fitness 53 (96.36%), restoration fracture 54 (98.18%), gingival condition 52 (94.55%), and color matching 53 (96.36%), while grade C was not found in all the evaluation indexes. The restoration effect of the ZC group was significantly better than that of the MCC group in all the four domains, with statistical significance (P<0.05) Table 2.Table 2
Evaluation of restorative effects.
Evaluation indicatorsMCC group (affectedteeth=68)ZC group (affectedteeth=55)U valueP valueMargin fitnessA55 (80.88)53 (96.36)7.7050.029B10 (14.71)2 (3.64)C3 (4.41)0 (0.00)Restoration fractureA58 (85.29)54 (98.18)6.2830.043B8 (11.76)1 (1.82)C2 (2.94)0 (0.00)Gingival conditionA51 (75.00)52 (94.55)13.1670.001B12 (17.65)3 (5.45)C5 (7.35)0 (0.00)Color matchingA53 (77.94)53 (96.36)8.8680.012B12 (17.65)2 (3.64)C3 (4.41)0 (0.00)


### 3.4. Gingival Crevicular Fluid Inflammation-Related Indicators

YKL-40, resistin, AST, and ALP showed no distinct differences between groups prior to restoration (P>0.05). After repair, YKL-40, resistin, AST, and ALP increased in both groups (P<0.05) and were lower in the ZC group compared with the MCC group, with statistical significance (P<0.05) Table 3.Table 3
Comparison of gingival crevicular fluid inflammation-related indicators between the two groups (x¯±s).
GroupsnYKL-40 (ng/mL)Resistin (ng/mL)AST (U/L)ALP (U/L)Before restorationAfter restorationBefore restorationAfter restorationBefore restorationAfter restorationBefore restorationAfter restorationMCC group5827.56±7.8556.32±10.12∗2.83±0.758.63±2.01∗2.50±0.553.55±1.01∗1.66±0.413.55±0.88∗ZC group4728.06±8.0542.35±9.65∗2.78±0.705.24±1.65∗2.56±0.603.01±0.80∗1.70±0.433.11±0.60∗t value0.3207.2170.3529.4930.5293.0580.41843.037P value0.750<0.0010.725<0.0010.5980.0030.6290.003Note:∗P<0.05vs. before restoration within the group.


### 3.5. Comparison of Patient Satisfaction

Compared with the MCC group, the ZC group scored statistically higher in retention effect, aesthetic effect, masticatory function, voice function, and comfort (P<0.05) Table 4.Table 4
Comparison of patient satisfaction with restoration between two groups (x¯±s, points).
GroupsnOverall aesthetic effectVoice functionMasticatory functionRetention effectComfortZC group478.88±0.569.01±0.557.58±1.058.55±0.718.22±0.74MCC group588.01±0.608.22±0.606.45±0.807.60±0.807.55±0.50t value7.6106.6926.2586.3605.517P value<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001


### 3.6. ORR

The ORR was statistically higher in the ZC group compared with the MCC group after treatment (P<0.05) Table 5.Table 5
Comparison of curative effects between the two groups after treatmentn%.
Curative effectZC group (n=47)MCC group (n=58)χ2 valueP valueMarkedly effective35 (74.47)26 (44.83)——Effective10 (21.27)20 (34.48)——Ineffective2 (4.26)12 (20.69)——Overall response rate45 (95.74)46 (79.31)6.0680.014


### 3.7. Incidence of ARs

A statistically lower posttreatment incidence of ARs was determined in the ZC group versus the MCC group (P<0.05) Table 6.Table 6
Comparison of incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups after treatmentn%.
Curative effectZC group (n=47)MCC group (n=58)χ2 valueP valueGingivitis2 (4.26)4 (6.90)——Abutment loosening0 (0.00)2 (3.45)——Periapical periodontitis2 (4.26)8 (13.79)——Incidence of adverse reactions4 (8.51)14 (24.14)4.440.035


## 3.1. Comparison of Patients’ General Information

The MCC group and the ZC group were not statistically different in sex, age, and the proportion of single condyle defect (P>0.05) Table 1.Table 1
Comparison of general information between the two groups [n%, x¯±s].
GroupsnGender (male/female)Age (years old)Single condyle defect/casesMCC group5833/2539.01±8.4548ZC group4725/2237.91±9.7839χ2/t value0.1440.6180.001P value0.7040.5380.976


## 3.2. Comparison of Inflammatory Factors before and after Treatment

Significant differences were present in various inflammatory factors in both groups after treatment compared with the levels before treatment (P<0.05), and compared with the MCC group, hs-CRP and TNF-α concentrations were lower in the ZC group after treatment, with statistical significance (P<0.05) Figure 1.Figure 1
Inflammatory factors. (a) hs-CRP: in both groups, there was significant difference in the level of hs-CRP after treatment compared with the level before treatment. After treatment, the hs-CRP level in the zirconia crown (ZC) group was lower than that in the metal-ceramic crown (MCC) group. (b) TNF-α: in both groups, there was significant difference in TNF-α level after treatment compared with the level before treatment. After treatment, the hs-CRP level in the ZC group was lower than that in the MCC group. Note: ∗ indicates P<0.05vs. the zirconia crown group; # indicates P<0.05vs. before treatment.
(a)(b)


## 3.3. Evaluation of Restorative Effects

Most of the patients in the ZC group were grade A in terms of margin fitness 53 (96.36%), restoration fracture 54 (98.18%), gingival condition 52 (94.55%), and color matching 53 (96.36%), while grade C was not found in all the evaluation indexes. The restoration effect of the ZC group was significantly better than that of the MCC group in all the four domains, with statistical significance (P<0.05) Table 2.Table 2
Evaluation of restorative effects.
Evaluation indicatorsMCC group (affectedteeth=68)ZC group (affectedteeth=55)U valueP valueMargin fitnessA55 (80.88)53 (96.36)7.7050.029B10 (14.71)2 (3.64)C3 (4.41)0 (0.00)Restoration fractureA58 (85.29)54 (98.18)6.2830.043B8 (11.76)1 (1.82)C2 (2.94)0 (0.00)Gingival conditionA51 (75.00)52 (94.55)13.1670.001B12 (17.65)3 (5.45)C5 (7.35)0 (0.00)Color matchingA53 (77.94)53 (96.36)8.8680.012B12 (17.65)2 (3.64)C3 (4.41)0 (0.00)


## 3.4. Gingival Crevicular Fluid Inflammation-Related Indicators

YKL-40, resistin, AST, and ALP showed no distinct differences between groups prior to restoration (P>0.05). After repair, YKL-40, resistin, AST, and ALP increased in both groups (P<0.05) and were lower in the ZC group compared with the MCC group, with statistical significance (P<0.05) Table 3.Table 3
Comparison of gingival crevicular fluid inflammation-related indicators between the two groups (x¯±s).
GroupsnYKL-40 (ng/mL)Resistin (ng/mL)AST (U/L)ALP (U/L)Before restorationAfter restorationBefore restorationAfter restorationBefore restorationAfter restorationBefore restorationAfter restorationMCC group5827.56±7.8556.32±10.12∗2.83±0.758.63±2.01∗2.50±0.553.55±1.01∗1.66±0.413.55±0.88∗ZC group4728.06±8.0542.35±9.65∗2.78±0.705.24±1.65∗2.56±0.603.01±0.80∗1.70±0.433.11±0.60∗t value0.3207.2170.3529.4930.5293.0580.41843.037P value0.750<0.0010.725<0.0010.5980.0030.6290.003Note:∗P<0.05vs. before restoration within the group.


## 3.5. Comparison of Patient Satisfaction

Compared with the MCC group, the ZC group scored statistically higher in retention effect, aesthetic effect, masticatory function, voice function, and comfort (P<0.05) Table 4.Table 4
Comparison of patient satisfaction with restoration between two groups (x¯±s, points).
GroupsnOverall aesthetic effectVoice functionMasticatory functionRetention effectComfortZC group478.88±0.569.01±0.557.58±1.058.55±0.718.22±0.74MCC group588.01±0.608.22±0.606.45±0.807.60±0.807.55±0.50t value7.6106.6926.2586.3605.517P value<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001


## 3.6. ORR

The ORR was statistically higher in the ZC group compared with the MCC group after treatment (P<0.05) Table 5.Table 5
Comparison of curative effects between the two groups after treatmentn%.
Curative effectZC group (n=47)MCC group (n=58)χ2 valueP valueMarkedly effective35 (74.47)26 (44.83)——Effective10 (21.27)20 (34.48)——Ineffective2 (4.26)12 (20.69)——Overall response rate45 (95.74)46 (79.31)6.0680.014


## 3.7. Incidence of ARs

A statistically lower posttreatment incidence of ARs was determined in the ZC group versus the MCC group (P<0.05) Table 6.Table 6
Comparison of incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups after treatmentn%.
Curative effectZC group (n=47)MCC group (n=58)χ2 valueP valueGingivitis2 (4.26)4 (6.90)——Abutment loosening0 (0.00)2 (3.45)——Periapical periodontitis2 (4.26)8 (13.79)——Incidence of adverse reactions4 (8.51)14 (24.14)4.440.035


## 4. Discussion

Full-crown restoration is a common restoration method for dental defects in clinical dentistry, which is suitable for patients with large tooth defect area, poor retention form, and reduced resistance. Through full-crown restoration, the affected teeth can be restored to normal anatomical morphology, occlusion, abutment, and arrangement [13]. Currently, porcelain crowns are most commonly used in clinical practice, but the aesthetics, safety, and effect of the restoration vary, depending on the restoration material used. The ideal restorative material is to help patients recover their oral physiological functions with some certain aesthetics, which can maximize the service time of the restoration and improve patients’ quality of life [14, 15]. Mandibular premolars are located between the canines and molars and can assist the canines to tear food and the molars to mash food. There is a high probability of fractures of mandibular premolars in the functional state, and the requirements for restoration materials are relatively high. Therefore, this study compares the recent repair effects of two commonly used clinical repair materials, in order to provide reference for clinicians to choose restoration schemes.This study found that the ZC group was superior to the MCC group in terms of margin fitness, restoration fracture, gingival condition, and color matching, which indicates that the zirconium dioxide all-ceramic material has a better restorative effect in the full-crown restoration of mandibular premolar tooth defects. Cobalt-chromium alloy is a widely used dental restoration material at present, which has the advantages of good casting performance and low price. However, as a metal material, it inevitably releases metal ions in the oral cavity, which has certain irritation to periodontal tissues. Besides, saliva in the oral cavity has certain corrosiveness to metals, which can cause gum allergies and black lines on the neck for a long time, with slightly poor aesthetics [16, 17]. Zirconia, on the other hand, is an inorganic nonmetallic material applied in dental restoration in recent years, which is characterized by high-temperature resistance, wear resistance, and strong corrosion resistance [18]. The zirconium dioxide all-ceramic crown will not cause gingival staining as it has no metal support in the neck. Moreover, it has good transparency and refraction, with the color close to that of natural teeth and high color matching with adjacent teeth, which can achieve good aesthetic effect [19]. In this paper, the fracture of the MCC group was found to be worse than that of the ZC group in the evaluation of restoration fracture. The reason is that the cobalt-chromium alloy porcelain crown combines the alloy base with the porcelain part, and the weak joint is more prone to fracture than the alloy-free zirconium dioxide all-ceramic crown. In vitro experiments [20] showed that, under the same bacterial adhesion condition, zirconia has stronger biological affinity and is more suitable to be used as an oral material. Felberg et al. [21] also confirmed that zirconia materials have excellent mechanical properties, wear resistance, and aesthetic characteristics, whether used as dental crown restoration materials or veneer materials. These studies all confirm the argument of this study.Healthy and stable periodontal tissue is an important factor that affects the effect of full-crown restoration. The aggregation of microorganisms and a large increase in products can cause periodontitis, resulting in periodontal infection and affecting the restorative effect. In this study, hs-CRP and TNF-α levels decreased significantly in both groups 1 day after restoration, with significantly lower levels in the ZC group compared with the MCC group, indicating that the inhibition effect of zirconium dioxide all-ceramic crowns on serum inflammation was more prominent. According to animal experiments of periodontitis [22], serum hs-CRP, which can reflect the immune inflammatory response of the body and promote the activation of the inflammatory system, will be significantly reduced under effective therapeutic intervention, which is consistent with our findings. TNF-α also mediates the promotion mechanism of periodontal tissue destruction, which can not only control periodontal tissue homeostasis but also affect the key pathway of alveolar bone resorption [23]. Besides, YKL-40, resistin, AST, and ALP in gingival crevicular fluid can also reflect periodontal inflammation and have some negative effects on periodontal health [24, 25]. YKL-40 is a newly discovered inflammatory factor in recent years, with abundant tissue sources, which can be expressed endogenously by inflammatory cells such as macrophages and neutrophils, as well as articular chondrocytes and synovial cells. It is mainly synthesized in myelocytes and metamyelocytes, stored in mature neutrophils, and released as exocytosis in response to inflammatory stimuli [26]. Resistin is an adipose-derived hormonal peptide secreted by immune cells and epithelial cells. Recent studies have found that resistin has proinflammatory potential and can be used as an important marker of inflammatory diseases [27]. AST and ALP are important functional enzymes of tooth osteoblasts, which have been confirmed to be involved in periodontal inflammation and can act as early markers of periodontitis [28, 29]. In this study, YKL-40, resistin, AST, and ALP levels in both groups increased one year after restoration compared with those before restoration, with lower levels in the ZC group compared with the MCC group, indicating that the use of zirconium dioxide as a full-crown restoration material had less influence on periodontal health than the cobalt-chromium alloy porcelain material. This is because zirconia materials are more biocompatible with the oral cavity and less irritating. In addition, the satisfaction evaluation revealed higher scores of retention effect, aesthetic effect, masticatory function, voice function, and comfort in the ZC group, which indicated that zirconia all-ceramic crown restoration can achieve better patient satisfaction. The novelty of this study is to evaluate the short-term clinical effects of cobalt-chromium alloy porcelain and zirconium dioxide all-ceramic crowns in the full-crown restoration of mandibular premolar tooth defects from the perspectives of inflammatory factors, restoration effect, gingival crevicular fluid inflammation-related indicators, restoration satisfaction, ORR, and incidence of ARs. The results confirmed the validity and reliability of zirconium dioxide all-ceramic crown restoration and provided a reliable basis for the restoration of mandibular premolar tooth defects.


## 5. Conclusion

In summary, in full-crown restoration of mandibular premolar tooth defects, zirconium dioxide all-ceramic crowns contribute to better short-term restorative effects than cobalt-chromium alloy porcelain crowns, with less influence on periodontal health and higher patient satisfaction.



---

*Source: 3682741-2022-07-01.xml*