Florian Beuer1,2, Caroline Sachs3, Julian Groesser3, Jan-Frederik Gueth3, Michael Stimmelmayr4. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Munich Dental School, Goethestr. 70, 80336, Munich, Germany. florian.beuer@charite.de. 2. Department of Prosthodontics, Charité University Medicine Berlin, Charité Center 03, Assmannshauser Str. 4-6, 14197, Berlin, Germany. florian.beuer@charite.de. 3. Department of Prosthodontics, Munich Dental School, Goethestr. 70, 80336, Munich, Germany. 4. , Josef-Heilingbrunner-Str. 2, 93413, Cham, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This case series compared the clinical survival of tooth-implant-supported (TI-S) and tooth-supported (T-S) three-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) with zirconia frameworks and described the incidence of biological and technical complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-four patients received 27 TI-S FDPs and 22 T-S FDPs. Twenty-seven titanium screw implants were inserted at the dislodged position of two missing posterior teeth. All implants were provided with customized zirconia abutments. Zirconia frameworks were fabricated by a CAD/CAM system and veneered in powder build-up technique. All restorations were cemented with glass ionomer. Baseline evaluation was performed 2 weeks after cementation with recall examinations performed at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months by calibrated investigators. Survival probabilities according to Kaplan-Meier were calculated. Gingival parameters and bone loss were assessed and statistically evaluated. RESULTS: The mean service time of the FDPs was 35 months (±6). Two technical complications (fracture of veneering porcelain) were observed. One biological complication was recorded. The Kaplan-Meier survival probability was 93.9 % for all types of complications and 100 % related to restorations in service. The type of abutment support (TI-S vs. T-S) had no significant influence on the survival probability (p = 0.412, log rank test). No difference of the gingival parameters was detected between implants and natural teeth. CONCLUSIONS: Tooth-implant-supported zirconia-based FDPs showed similar clinical performance compared to tooth-supported zirconia-based FDPs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Within the limitations of this case series, tooth-implant-supported FDPs with zirconia frameworks seem to be a reliable treatment option.
OBJECTIVES: This case series compared the clinical survival of tooth-implant-supported (TI-S) and tooth-supported (T-S) three-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) with zirconia frameworks and described the incidence of biological and technical complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-four patients received 27 TI-S FDPs and 22 T-S FDPs. Twenty-seven titanium screw implants were inserted at the dislodged position of two missing posterior teeth. All implants were provided with customized zirconia abutments. Zirconia frameworks were fabricated by a CAD/CAM system and veneered in powder build-up technique. All restorations were cemented with glass ionomer. Baseline evaluation was performed 2 weeks after cementation with recall examinations performed at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months by calibrated investigators. Survival probabilities according to Kaplan-Meier were calculated. Gingival parameters and bone loss were assessed and statistically evaluated. RESULTS: The mean service time of the FDPs was 35 months (±6). Two technical complications (fracture of veneering porcelain) were observed. One biological complication was recorded. The Kaplan-Meier survival probability was 93.9 % for all types of complications and 100 % related to restorations in service. The type of abutment support (TI-S vs. T-S) had no significant influence on the survival probability (p = 0.412, log rank test). No difference of the gingival parameters was detected between implants and natural teeth. CONCLUSIONS: Tooth-implant-supported zirconia-based FDPs showed similar clinical performance compared to tooth-supported zirconia-based FDPs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Within the limitations of this case series, tooth-implant-supported FDPs with zirconia frameworks seem to be a reliable treatment option.
Authors: Bogna Stawarczyk; Mutlu Özcan; Felix Schmutz; Albert Trottmann; Malgorzata Roos; Christoph H F Hämmerle Journal: Acta Odontol Scand Date: 2012-02-27 Impact factor: 2.331
Authors: Florian Beuer; Michael Stimmelmayr; Jan-Frederik Gueth; Daniel Edelhoff; Michael Naumann Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2011-12-22 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: Ayman A Balshe; Steven E Eckert; Sreenivas Koka; Daniel A Assad; Amy L Weaver Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants Date: 2008 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Roland Glauser; Irena Sailer; Arnold Wohlwend; Stephan Studer; Monica Schibli; Peter Schärer Journal: Int J Prosthodont Date: 2004 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.681