Porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) restorations are still the most prescribed restorative treatment alternative to date. The porcelains used at our lab incorporate optical properties that parallel natural tooth structure resulting in superior esthetics. The PFM restorations appear so natural, they rival some of the most innovative restorative options available.
Porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) restorations have been the most common metal-ceramic option for over 50 years, being used to repair damaged teeth. PFM crowns have good mechanical properties, satisfactory esthetic results, and an acceptable biological quality needed for periodontal health.
CreoDent fabricates high-quality porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations crafted by careful layering porcelain to a substructure of precious, semi-precious, or non-precious alloy. The metal provides stability and strength and the porcelain provides the restored tooth with a life-like appearance. These crowns are still a popular option due to their high-rate of clinical success and their biocompatibility that helps ensure continued periodontal health. PFMs are also gentle on opposing dentition.
Properly constructed and seated PFM crowns, by the craftsmanship of CreoDent’s technicians, provide optimal strength and longevity. An anatomical framework design is crucial to provide proper support and maintain the appropriate thickness for the veneering porcelain.
Precision attachments can be used with PFMs, while zirconia restorations have not yet achieved this ability
Strong and durable
High survival rate for long term period
Mask underlying tooth discoloration, metal cores and implant abutments.
Longevity of PFM crowns Vs. All ceramic crowns
Short-term survival (less than five years)
Three studies reported short-term survival rates for both all-ceramic and porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns. Takeichi et al. reported survival rates of 95.9% for zirconia-based crowns and 95.4% for porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns. Burke et al. reported survival rates of 92% for all-ceramic crowns and 93% for porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns. Ohlmann et al. reported the only statistical comparison between porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns and all-ceramic crowns. The authors reported a hazard ratio of failure of 0.74 [95% confidence interval 0.29 to 1.87] for porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns relative to polymer crowns with glass-fiber framework. The hazard ratio showed that porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns had numerically lower failure rate, but the difference did not reach statistical significance.
Mid-term survival (five years to eight years)
Sailer et al. reported a mid-term survival rate for porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns of 96%. The authors also reported the survival rates for several all-ceramic crown types; these were feldspathic/silica-based ceramic (90.7%), leucite or lithium-disilicate reinforced glass ceramic (96.6%), glass-infiltrated ceramic (94.6%), densely sintered alumina (96%), densely sintered zirconia (92%), and composite crowns (83.4%). Burke et al. reported lower survival rates for both porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns (76%) and all-ceramic crowns (68%).
Long-term survival (eight years or more)
Burke et al. reported a long-term survival rate of 62% for porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns and 48% for all-ceramic crowns.
(Porcelain-Fused-to-Metal Crowns versus All-ceramic Crowns: A Review of the Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness., Canadian agency for drugs and technologies in health, 2015)
Ideal Thickness Requirements
Crowns and bridges up to 14 units
Implant-supported crowns and bridges
• Feldspathic porcelain: Kaolin, Quartz, Feldspar, etc.