The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Survival rate of modern all-ceramic FPDs during an observation period from 2011 to 2016

  • Pott, Philipp-Cornelius (Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Biomedical Materials Research, Hannover Medical School) ;
  • Eisenburger, Michael (Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Biomedical Materials Research, Hannover Medical School) ;
  • Stiesch, Meike (Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Biomedical Materials Research, Hannover Medical School)
  • Received : 2017.03.15
  • Accepted : 2017.05.10
  • Published : 2018.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. In literature, many studies compare survival rates of different types of FPDs. Most of them compared restorations, which originated from one university, but from different clinicians. Data about restoration survival rates by only one experienced dentist are very rare. The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival rate of all-ceramic FPDs without the blurring effects of different clinicians. MATERIALS AND METHODS. 153 veneered-zirconia FPDs were observed for follow-up. 22 patients received 131 single crowns and 22 bridges. Because of the different bridge lengths, one unit was defined as a restored or replaced tooth. In total, 201 units were included. Only the restorations performed by the same clinician and produced in the same dental laboratory from 2011 to 2016 were included. Considered factors were defined as "type of unit", "type of abutment", "intraoral region", and "vitality". Modified UHPHS criteria were used for evaluation. Statistical analysis was performed using cox-regression. RESULTS. 189 units (94.0%) showed no kind of failure. 5 chippings (2.4%) could be corrected by intraoral polishing. 4 units (1.9%) exhibited spontaneous decementation. These polishable and recementable restorations are still in clinical use. Chippings or decementations, which lead to total failure, did not occur. One unit was completely fractured (0.5 %). Biological failures (caries, periodontitis or periimplantitis) did not occur. The statistical analysis of the factors did not reveal any significant differences. CONCLUSION. Modern all-ceramic FPDs seem to be an appropriate therapy not only for single restorations but for complex occlusal rehabilitations.

Keywords

References

  1. Schmitter M, Mueller D, Rues S. Chipping behaviour of allceramic crowns with zirconia framework and CAD/CAM manufactured veneer. J Dent 2012;40:154-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2011.12.007
  2. Alhasanyah A, Vaidyanathan TK, Flinton RJ. Effect of core thickness differences on post-fatigue indentation fracture resistance of veneered zirconia crowns. J Prosthodont 2013;22: 383-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12016
  3. Molin MK, Karlsson SL. Five-year clinical prospective evaluation of zirconia-based Denzir 3-unit FPDs. Int J Prosthodont 2008;21:223-7.
  4. Naenni N, Bindl A, Sax C, Hammerle C, Sailer I. A randomized controlled clinical trial of 3-unit posterior zirconia-ceramic fixed dental prostheses (FDP) with layered or pressed veneering ceramics: 3-year results. J Dent 2015;43:1365-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.07.013
  5. Ramos GF, Monteiro EB, Bottino MA, Zhang Y, Marques de Melo R. Failure probability of three designs of zirconia crowns. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2015;35:843-9. https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.2448
  6. Harianawala HH, Kheur MG, Apte SK, Kale BB, Sethi TS, Kheur SM. Comparative analysis of transmittance for different types of commercially available zirconia and lithium disilicate materials. J Adv Prosthodont 2014;6:456-61. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2014.6.6.456
  7. Kohorst P, Borchers L, Strempel J, Stiesch M, Hassel T, Bach FW, Hubsch C. Low-temperature degradation of different zirconia ceramics for dental applications. Acta Biomater 2012; 8:1213-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2011.11.016
  8. Marquardt P, Strub JR. Survival rates of IPS empress 2 all-ceramic crowns and fixed partial dentures: results of a 5-year prospective clinical study. Quintessence Int 2006;37:253-9.
  9. Moraguez OD, Wiskott HW, Scherrer SS. Three- to nine-year survival estimates and fracture mechanisms of zirconia- and alumina-based restorations using standardized criteria to distinguish the severity of ceramic fractures. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19:2295-307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1455-y
  10. Rinke S, Kramer K, Burgers R, Roediger M. A practice-based clinical evaluation of the survival and success of metal-ceramic and zirconia molar crowns: 5-year results. J Oral Rehabil 2016;43:136-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12348
  11. Ortorp A, Kihl ML, Carlsson GE. A 5-year retrospective study of survival of zirconia single crowns fitted in a private clinical setting. J Dent 2012;40:527-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.02.011
  12. Ryge G, Snyder M. Evaluating the clinical quality of restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1973;87:369-77. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1973.0421
  13. Eisenburger M, Tschernitschek H. Clinical and technical comparison of the long term success of clasp retained dentures and of telescopic crown retained dentures. Dtsch Zahnarzl Z 1998;53:257-9.
  14. Beuer F, Sachs C, Groesser J, Gueth JF, Stimmelmayr M. Tooth-implant-supported posterior fixed dental prostheses with zirconia frameworks: 3-year clinical result. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:1079-86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1594-1
  15. Raigrodski AJ, Hillstead MB, Meng GK, Chung KH. Survival and complications of zirconia-based fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2012;107:170-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60051-1
  16. Raigrodski AJ, Yu A, Chiche GJ, Hochstedler JL, Mancl LA, Mohamed SE. Clinical efficacy of veneered zirconium dioxide-based posterior partial fixed dental prostheses: five-year results. J Prosthet Dent 2012;108:214-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60165-6
  17. Hey J, Beuer F, Bensel T, Boeckler AF. Single crowns with CAD/CAM-fabricated copings from titanium: 6-year clinical results. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:150-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.09.031
  18. Prabhu R, Prabhu G, Baskaran E, Arumugam EM. Clinical acceptability of metal-ceramic fixed partial dental prosthesis fabricated with direct metal laser sintering technique-5 year follow-up. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2016;16:193-7. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4052.176526
  19. Sailer I, Makarov NA, Thoma DS, Zwahlen M, Pjetursson BE. All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part I: Single crowns (SCs). Dent Mater 2015;31:603-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.02.011
  20. Pjetursson BE, Bragger U, Lang NP, Zwahlen M. Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs). Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:97-113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01439.x
  21. Sax C, Hammerle CH, Sailer I. 10-year clinical outcomes of fixed dental prostheses with zirconia frameworks. Int J Comput Dent 2011;14:183-202.
  22. Ioannidis A, Bindl A. Clinical prospective evaluation of zirconia-based three-unit posterior fixed dental prostheses: Up-to ten-year results. J Dent 2016;47:80-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.01.014

Cited by

  1. Comparison of stress in implant-supported monolithic zirconia fixed partial dentures between canine guidance and group function occlusal patterns: A finite element analysis vol.13, pp.2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.15171/joddd.2019.014
  2. Influence of zirconia surface treatments of a bilayer restorative assembly on the fatigue performance vol.65, pp.2, 2021, https://doi.org/10.2186/jpr.jpor_2019_553
  3. Fracture Load of CAD/CAM Fabricated Cantilever Implant-Supported Zirconia Framework: An In Vitro Study vol.26, pp.8, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26082259