A multi-center retrospective assessment of monolithic zirconia restorations on posterior teeth and implants.

  • Sandra AlTarawneh Head of Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, the University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
  • Motasum Abu-Awwad Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, the University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan. http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7912-5209
  • Salah Riyal Riyal dental clinics, Amman, Jordan.
  • Rania Samara Private practice, Amman, Jordan
  • Susan Hattar Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, the University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1695-0014

Abstract

Objective: the purpose of this multicenter retrospective study was to report on survival, success, and complication rates in monolithic zirconia restorations on teeth and implants. Materials and Methods: data on 671 monolithic zirconia restorations was collected by five prosthodontists from three different specialty practice centers, including a dental school and two private practice centers. Restorations included single crowns and multiple-unit fixed dental prostheses on teeth and implants in the posterior area (premolar and molars). Follow-up time was up to 62 months. Results: mean follow-up time was 28.1±12.9 months. A total of 671 units, 534 single crowns, and 137 multi-unit restorations. Cumulative survival and success rates at 5 years were 97.4%, and 93.8% respectively. Complications presented in 11 restorations out of 671 and included: decementation, abutment screw loosening, restoration crack, restoration fracture, and tooth fracture. No significant differences were observed between tooth-supported and implant-supported restoration (p=0.42), single crowns and multiple-unit restorations (p=0.07), bruxers and non-bruxers (p=0.57). Patients with group function occlusal scheme had significantly less survival rates (p=0.001). Conclusion: the use of monolithic zirconia for restorations on the posterior teeth and implants seems to be promising as it provides a durable solution with a low rate of complications.

Author Biographies

Motasum Abu-Awwad, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, the University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
 
Susan Hattar, Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, the University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
 

References

1. Heintze SD, Rousson V. Survival of zirconia- and metal-supported fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review. Int J Prosthodont. 2010;23(6):493-502.
2. Denry I, Kelly JR. State of the art of zirconia for dental applications. Dent Mater. 2008;24(3):299-307.
3. Esquivel-Upshaw JF, Kim MJ, Hsu SM, Abdulhameed N, Jenkins R, Neal D, Ren F, Clark AE. Randomized clinical study of wear of enamel antagonists against polished monolithic zirconia crowns. J Dent. 2018;68:19-27
4. Piconi C, Maccauro G. Zirconia as a ceramic biomaterial. Biomaterials. 1999;20(1):1-25.
5. Stawarczyk B, Keul C, Eichberger M, Figge D, Edelhoff D, Lumkemann N. Three generations of zirconia: 
 From veneered to monolithic. Part I. Quintessence Int. 2017;48(5):369-80
6. Larsson C, Vult von Steyern P. Five-year follow-up of implant-supported Y-TZP and ZTA fixed dental prostheses. A randomized, prospective clinical trial comparing two different material systems. Int J Prosthodont. 2010;23(6):555-61.
7. Cheng CW, Chien CH, Chen CJ, Papaspyridakos P. Clinical Results and Technical Complications of Posterior Implant-Supported Modified Monolithic Zirconia Single Crowns and Short-Span Fixed Dental Prostheses: A 2-Year Pilot Study. J Prosthodont. 2018;27(2):108-14
8. Bomicke W, Rammelsberg P, Stober T, Schmitter M. Short-Term Prospective Clinical Evaluation of Monolithic and Partially Veneered Zirconia Single Crowns. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2017;29(1):22-30.
9. Papaspyridakos P, Lal K. Computer-assisted design/computer-assisted manufacturing zirconia implant fixed complete prostheses: clinical results and technical complications up to 4 years of function. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24(6):659-65.
10. Moscovitch M. Consecutive case series of monolithic and minimally veneered zirconia restorations on teeth and implants: up to 68 months. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2015;35(3):315-23.
11. Rojas Vizcaya F. Retrospective 2- to 7-Year Follow-Up Study of 20 Double Full-Arch Implant-Supported Monolithic Zirconia Fixed Prostheses: Measurements and Recommendations for Optimal Design. J Prosthodont. 2018;27(6):501-8
12. Abdulmajeed AA, Lim KG, Narhi TO, Cooper LF. Complete-arch implant-supported monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115(6):672-7.e1
13. 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 (Suppl 3):97-113.
14. Nothdurft FP, Pospiech PR. Zirconium dioxide implant abutments for posterior single-tooth replacement: first results. J Periodontol. 2009;80(12):2065-72
15. Spies BC, Kohal RJ, Balmer M, Vach K, Jung RE. Evaluation of zirconia-based posterior single crowns supported by zirconia implants: preliminary results of a prospective multicenter study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(5):613-9
16. Spies BC, Witkowski S, Butz F, Vach K, Kohal RJ. Bi-layered zirconia/fluor-apatite bridges supported by ceramic dental implants: a prospective case series after thirty months of observation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27(10):1265-73
17. Schley JS, Heussen N, Reich S, Fischer J, Haselhuhn K, Wolfart S. Survival probability of zirconia-based fixed dental prostheses up to 5 yr: a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Oral Sci. 2010;118(5):443-50.
18. Sax C, Hammerle CH, Sailer I. 10-year clinical outcomes of fixed dental prostheses with zirconia frameworks. Int J Comput dent. 2011;14(3):183-202.
19. Cheng CW, Chien CH, Chen CJ, Papaspyridakos P. Complete-mouth implant rehabilitation with modified monolithic zirconia implant-supported fixed dental prostheses and an immediate-loading protocol: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109(6):347-52.
20. Altarawneh S, Limmer B, Reside GJ, Cooper L. Dual jaw treatment of edentulism using implant-supported monolithic zirconia fixed prostheses. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2015;27(2):63-70
21. Limmer B, Sanders AE, Reside G, Cooper LF. Complications and patient-centered outcomes with an implant-supported monolithic zirconia fixed dental prosthesis: 1 year results. J Prosthodont. 2014;23(4):267-75.
22. Venezia P, Torsello F, Cavalcanti R, D'Amato S. Retrospective analysis of 26 complete-arch implant-supported monolithic zirconia prostheses with feldspathic porcelain veneering limited to the facial surface. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114(4):506-12.
23. Spitznagel FA, Horvath SD, Gierthmuehlen PC. Prosthetic protocols in implant-based oral rehabilitations: A systematic review on the clinical outcome of monolithic all-ceramic single- and multi-unit prostheses. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10 Suppl 1:89-99.
24. Tawil G, Aboujaoude N, Younan R. Influence of prosthetic parameters on the survival and complication rates of short implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006;21(2):275-82.
25. Lo J, Abduo J, Palamara J. Effect of different lateral occlusion schemes on peri-implant strain: A laboratory study. J Adv Prosthodont. 2017;9(1):45-51.
26. Sripetchdanond J, Leevailoj C. Wear of human enamel opposing monolithic zirconia, glass ceramic, and composite resin: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(5):1141-50
27. Stober T, Bermejo JL, Schwindling FS, Schmitter M. Clinical assessment of enamel wear caused by monolithic zirconia crowns. J Oral Rehabil. 2016;43(8):621-9.
28. Brignardello-Petersen R. There seem to be no differences in enamel wear among natural teeth opposing monolithic zirconia crowns, porcelain fused-to-metal crowns, and other natural teeth. J Am Dent Assoc. 2018;149(2):e45.
29. Esquivel-Upshaw JF, Rose WF Jr, Barrett AA, Oliveira ER, Yang MC, Clark AE, Anusavice KJ. Three years in vivo wear: core-ceramic, veneers, and enamel antagonists. Dent Mater. 2012;28(6):615-21.
30. Mundhe K, Jain V, Pruthi G, Shah N. Clinical study to evaluate the wear of natural enamel antagonist to zirconia and metal ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114(3):358-63.
Published
2019-08-31
How to Cite
ALTARAWNEH, Sandra et al. A multi-center retrospective assessment of monolithic zirconia restorations on posterior teeth and implants.. Journal of Oral Research, [S.l.], v. 8, n. 4, p. 298-304, aug. 2019. ISSN 0719-2479. Available at: <https://www.joralres.com/index.php/JOralRes/article/view/joralres.2019.044>. Date accessed: 28 mar. 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.17126/joralres.2019.044.
Section
Articles