OBJECTIVETo evaluate and compare effects of compound galvano-ceramic bridges with Ni-Cr alloy ceramic bridges and gold alloy ceramic bridges in clinic.

METHODSA total of 105 bridges were made for 103 patients. Of them, 35 were compound galvano-ceramic bridges, 35 Ni-Cr alloy ceramic bridges, and 35 gold alloy ceramic bridges respectively. The marginal fitness and fracture of ceramic bridges were checked and caries or second caries of all abutments were also examined in clinic at 6 years after cementation.

RESULTSThe marginal fitness of compound galvano-ceramic bridges was evaluated as good in 100% of the bridges, which was better than the fitness of gold alloy ceramic bridges (91%) and Ni-Cr alloy ceramic bridges (77%) (P < 0.01). There was no difference in fracture of ceramic layer among compound galvano-ceramic, gold alloy ceramic, and Ni-Cr alloy ceramic bridges at 6 years (P > 0.05). None of compound galvano-ceramic bridge was found out caries or second caries of abutments. Two of 35 (6%) gold alloy ceramic bridges was found out second caries of abutments and five of 35 (14%) Ni-Cr alloy ceramic bridges were found out caries or second caries of abutments at 6 years. None of frameworks of all bridges was loose or broken.

CONCLUSIONSThe 6-year clinical study on compound galvano-ceramic bridges presents good results in marginal fitness and fracture resistance, which indicates the compound galvano-ceramic bridge can be used in clinic.