By the Numbers: The Evolution of Restorative Materials

November 28, 2023

Innovations in technology and restorative materials have enabled dentists to provide more durable and esthetic restorative options. The launch of BruxZir® Zirconia in 2009 introduced doctors to a durable monolithic zirconia, and doctors transitioned away from PFMs and other ceramic materials.1

EARLY ALL-CERAMIC MATERIALS

Captek Restorations Percentage of Incoming Cases graph
Artglass Restorations  Percentage of Incoming Cases graph
Empress Restorations  Percentage of Incoming Cases graph
InCeram Restorations  Percentage of Incoming Cases graph

1994–2015

In 1994 and 1995, we saw the launch of Captek™, InCeram, Artglass and Empress. At their peaks, these materials represented 10.3%, 6.1%, 17.9%, and 10.2% of restorations fabricated by Glidewell. Unfortunately, the clinical results of these early all-ceramic materials were often disappointing. As new materials with better strength and esthetics became available, treatment preferences shifted. By 2015, all these once-popular materials were no longer clinically relevant.

31 million

BruxZir Zirconia restorations produced by Glidewell since the material’s 2009 introduction.

BruxZir vs. PFM 2008-2022  Percentage of Incoming Cases graph

The Decline of PFMs

In 2007, PFM restorations made up 65.3% of restorations fabricated by Glidewell. By 2022, this number had dropped to 6.1%.

2012 Fixed Restorative chart

49%

Restorations fabricated from BruxZir Zirconia by Glidewell in 2012 (compared to 16.6% for IPS e.max® [Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc.; Amherst, N.Y.] and 22.5% for PFM restorations).

2022 Fixed Restorative chart

81.6%

Restorations fabricated from BruxZir Zirconia by Glidewell in 2022 (compared to 7.6% for IPS e.max and 6.1% for PFM restorations).

References

  1. ^All information derived from Glidewell internal data.