Purpose: The opacity of zirconia sometimes requires a veneering material; thus lithium disilicate, a veneer material with excellent strength, can be used. This study investigated the fracture resistance of zirconia–lithium disilicate (Zr-LS2) bi-layered crowns according to the design of the substructure. Materials and Methods: Five groups of posterior Zr-LS2 restorations (Zirtooth and Amber LiSi-POZ) were fabricated with different zirconia substructure coverage (control group, groups half occlusal zirconia coverage; 1/2OZ, and three-quarter occlusal zirconia coverage; 3/4OZ) and margin designs (control group, groups collar margin; C-M, and collarless margin; Cl-M). All restorations were cemented with self-adhesive resin cement followed by 24-h water storage and thermocycling (10,000 cycles, 5°C and 55°C). The fracture load was measured, and failure mode analysis, fractography, and elemental analysis were performed. The one-way analysis of variance and Fisher’s exact test were performed for statistical analyses (α=.05). Results: A significant difference was found in the fracture load of Zr-LS2 restorations according to the zirconia coverage of the occlusal area and margin design (P<.05). Group 3/4OZ was significantly larger than the control group C and 1/2OZ (P<.05). The C-M group had greater fracture loads based on margin design than the control group C and Cl-M (P<.05). Conclusion The fracture resistance of posterior Zr-LS2 restorations increased with the zirconia coverage, occlusal thickness, and collar margin.

Purpose: The opacity of zirconia sometimes requires a veneering material; thus lithium disilicate, a veneer material with excellent strength, can be used. This study investigated the fracture resistance of zirconia–lithium disilicate (Zr-LS2) bi-layered crowns according to the design of the substructure. Materials and Methods: Five groups of posterior Zr-LS2 restorations (Zirtooth and Amber LiSi-POZ) were fabricated with different zirconia substructure coverage (control group, groups half occlusal zirconia coverage; 1/2OZ, and three-quarter occlusal zirconia coverage; 3/4OZ) and margin designs (control group, groups collar margin; C-M, and collarless margin; Cl-M). All restorations were cemented with self-adhesive resin cement followed by 24-h water storage and thermocycling (10,000 cycles, 5°C and 55°C). The fracture load was measured, and failure mode analysis, fractography, and elemental analysis were performed. The one-way analysis of variance and Fisher’s exact test were performed for statistical analyses (α=.05). Results: A significant difference was found in the fracture load of Zr-LS2 restorations according to the zirconia coverage of the occlusal area and margin design (P<.05). Group 3/4OZ was significantly larger than the control group C and 1/2OZ (P<.05). The C-M group had greater fracture loads based on margin design than the control group C and Cl-M (P<.05). Conclusion The fracture resistance of posterior Zr-LS2 restorations increased with the zirconia coverage, occlusal thickness, and collar margin.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance and survival rate of implant-supported zirconia-lithium disilicate (Zr-LiSi) bilayered ceramic prostheses over 3 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 71 patients, including 34 with implant-supported metal-ceramic prostheses (control group) and 37 with implant-supported Zr-LiSi bilayered ceramic prostheses (test group). The implant survival rate and incidence of prosthetic and biological complications (veneer fractures, dislodgement of screw-access hole filling material, screw loosening, peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, and marginal bone loss) were investigated. The survival rate was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves, and the identity between two groups was confirmed by the log-rank test. RESULTS: Both groups showed a 100% survival rate, whereas the prosthetic survival rates were 77% and 73% for the metal-ceramic and Zr-LiSi groups, respectively. Biological complications did not appear in the metal-ceramic group, and 16.2% of peri-implant mucositis occurred in the Zr-LiSi group, which was significant (P < .05). Prosthetic complications occurred in 5.8% of the metal-ceramic group with veneer fractures and did not occur in the Zr-LiSi bilayered ceramic group. CONCLUSION This study revealed that posterior Zr-LiSi bilayered ceramic implant prostheses showed high survival rates and similar survival rates to metal-ceramic implant prostheses; however, additional consideration should be given to avoid overcontouring. Zr-LiSi bilayered ceramic implant prostheses may be an option for posterior implant-supported prosthetic treatment.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance and survival rate of implant-supported zirconia-lithium disilicate (Zr-LiSi) bilayered ceramic prostheses over 3 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 71 patients, including 34 with implant-supported metal-ceramic prostheses (control group) and 37 with implant-supported Zr-LiSi bilayered ceramic prostheses (test group). The implant survival rate and incidence of prosthetic and biological complications (veneer fractures, dislodgement of screw-access hole filling material, screw loosening, peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, and marginal bone loss) were investigated. The survival rate was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves, and the identity between two groups was confirmed by the log-rank test. RESULTS: Both groups showed a 100% survival rate, whereas the prosthetic survival rates were 77% and 73% for the metal-ceramic and Zr-LiSi groups, respectively. Biological complications did not appear in the metal-ceramic group, and 16.2% of peri-implant mucositis occurred in the Zr-LiSi group, which was significant (P < .05). Prosthetic complications occurred in 5.8% of the metal-ceramic group with veneer fractures and did not occur in the Zr-LiSi bilayered ceramic group. CONCLUSION This study revealed that posterior Zr-LiSi bilayered ceramic implant prostheses showed high survival rates and similar survival rates to metal-ceramic implant prostheses; however, additional consideration should be given to avoid overcontouring. Zr-LiSi bilayered ceramic implant prostheses may be an option for posterior implant-supported prosthetic treatment.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance and survival rate of implant-supported zirconia-lithium disilicate (Zr-LiSi) bilayered ceramic prostheses over 3 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 71 patients, including 34 with implant-supported metal-ceramic prostheses (control group) and 37 with implant-supported Zr-LiSi bilayered ceramic prostheses (test group). The implant survival rate and incidence of prosthetic and biological complications (veneer fractures, dislodgement of screw-access hole filling material, screw loosening, peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, and marginal bone loss) were investigated. The survival rate was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves, and the identity between two groups was confirmed by the log-rank test. RESULTS: Both groups showed a 100% survival rate, whereas the prosthetic survival rates were 77% and 73% for the metal-ceramic and Zr-LiSi groups, respectively. Biological complications did not appear in the metal-ceramic group, and 16.2% of peri-implant mucositis occurred in the Zr-LiSi group, which was significant (P < .05). Prosthetic complications occurred in 5.8% of the metal-ceramic group with veneer fractures and did not occur in the Zr-LiSi bilayered ceramic group. CONCLUSION This study revealed that posterior Zr-LiSi bilayered ceramic implant prostheses showed high survival rates and similar survival rates to metal-ceramic implant prostheses; however, additional consideration should be given to avoid overcontouring. Zr-LiSi bilayered ceramic implant prostheses may be an option for posterior implant-supported prosthetic treatment.

Purpose: This study analyzed the pathological complete response (pCR) rates, long-term outcomes, and biological features of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-zero, HER2-low, and HER2-positive breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment. Methods: This single-center study included 1,667 patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy from 2008 to 2014. Patients were categorized by HER2 status, and their clinicopathological characteristics, chemotherapy responses, and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were analyzed. Results: Patients with HER2-low tumors were more likely to be older (p = 0.081), have a lower histological grade (p < 0.001), and have hormone receptor (HorR)-positive tumors (p < 0.001). The HER2-positive group exhibited the highest pCR rate (23.3%), followed by the HER2-zero (15.5%) and HER2-low (10.9%) groups. However, the pCR rate did not differ between HER2-low and HER2-zero tumors in the HorR-positive or HorR-negative subgroups.The 5-year RFS rates increased in the following order: HER2-low, HER2-positive, and HER2-zero (80.0%, 77.5%, and 74.5%, respectively) (log-rank test p = 0.017). A significant survival difference between patients with HER2-low and HER2-zero tumors was only identified in HorR-negative tumors (5-year RFS for HER2-low, 74.5% vs. HER2-zero, 66.0%; log-rank test p-value = 0.04). Multivariate survival analysis revealed that achieving a pCR was the most significant factor associated with improved survival (hazard ratio [HR], 4.279; p < 0.001).Compared with HER2-zero, the HRs for HER2-low and HER2-positive tumors were 0.787 (p = 0.042) and 0.728 (p = 0.005), respectively. After excluding patients who received HER2-targeted therapy, patients with HER2-low tumors exhibited better RFS than those with HER2-zero (HR 0.784, p = 0.04), whereas those with HER2-positive tumors exhibited no significant difference compared with those with HER2-low tumors (HR, 0.975; p = 0.953). Conclusion Patients with HER2-low tumors had no significant difference in pCR rate compared to HER2-zero but showed better survival, especially in HorR-negative tumors.Further investigation into biological differences is warranted.

Purpose: This study analyzed the pathological complete response (pCR) rates, long-term outcomes, and biological features of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-zero, HER2-low, and HER2-positive breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment. Methods: This single-center study included 1,667 patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy from 2008 to 2014. Patients were categorized by HER2 status, and their clinicopathological characteristics, chemotherapy responses, and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were analyzed. Results: Patients with HER2-low tumors were more likely to be older (p = 0.081), have a lower histological grade (p < 0.001), and have hormone receptor (HorR)-positive tumors (p < 0.001). The HER2-positive group exhibited the highest pCR rate (23.3%), followed by the HER2-zero (15.5%) and HER2-low (10.9%) groups. However, the pCR rate did not differ between HER2-low and HER2-zero tumors in the HorR-positive or HorR-negative subgroups.The 5-year RFS rates increased in the following order: HER2-low, HER2-positive, and HER2-zero (80.0%, 77.5%, and 74.5%, respectively) (log-rank test p = 0.017). A significant survival difference between patients with HER2-low and HER2-zero tumors was only identified in HorR-negative tumors (5-year RFS for HER2-low, 74.5% vs. HER2-zero, 66.0%; log-rank test p-value = 0.04). Multivariate survival analysis revealed that achieving a pCR was the most significant factor associated with improved survival (hazard ratio [HR], 4.279; p < 0.001).Compared with HER2-zero, the HRs for HER2-low and HER2-positive tumors were 0.787 (p = 0.042) and 0.728 (p = 0.005), respectively. After excluding patients who received HER2-targeted therapy, patients with HER2-low tumors exhibited better RFS than those with HER2-zero (HR 0.784, p = 0.04), whereas those with HER2-positive tumors exhibited no significant difference compared with those with HER2-low tumors (HR, 0.975; p = 0.953). Conclusion Patients with HER2-low tumors had no significant difference in pCR rate compared to HER2-zero but showed better survival, especially in HorR-negative tumors.Further investigation into biological differences is warranted.

Purpose: The opacity of zirconia sometimes requires a veneering material; thus lithium disilicate, a veneer material with excellent strength, can be used. This study investigated the fracture resistance of zirconia–lithium disilicate (Zr-LS2) bi-layered crowns according to the design of the substructure. Materials and Methods: Five groups of posterior Zr-LS2 restorations (Zirtooth and Amber LiSi-POZ) were fabricated with different zirconia substructure coverage (control group, groups half occlusal zirconia coverage; 1/2OZ, and three-quarter occlusal zirconia coverage; 3/4OZ) and margin designs (control group, groups collar margin; C-M, and collarless margin; Cl-M). All restorations were cemented with self-adhesive resin cement followed by 24-h water storage and thermocycling (10,000 cycles, 5°C and 55°C). The fracture load was measured, and failure mode analysis, fractography, and elemental analysis were performed. The one-way analysis of variance and Fisher’s exact test were performed for statistical analyses (α=.05). Results: A significant difference was found in the fracture load of Zr-LS2 restorations according to the zirconia coverage of the occlusal area and margin design (P<.05). Group 3/4OZ was significantly larger than the control group C and 1/2OZ (P<.05). The C-M group had greater fracture loads based on margin design than the control group C and Cl-M (P<.05). Conclusion The fracture resistance of posterior Zr-LS2 restorations increased with the zirconia coverage, occlusal thickness, and collar margin.