Aous A Abdulmajeed1, Kevin G Lim2, Timo O Närhi3, Lyndon F Cooper4. 1. Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Institute of Dentistry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland; and Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 2. Resident, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 3. Professor, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Institute of Dentistry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. 4. Associate Dean for Research and Department Head, Oral Biology, University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Dentistry, Chicago, Ill. Electronic address: cooperlf@uic.edu.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Monolithic zirconia prostheses are emerging as a promising option in the implant-based rehabilitations of edentulous patients, yet their clinical performance is not fully documented. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the clinical performance of complete-arch implant-supported monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The electronic databases PubMed, Science Direct, and Cochrane Library were searched for clinical studies on complete-arch implant-supported monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses. Human studies with a mean follow-up of at least 1 year and published in an English-language peer-reviewed journal up to June 2015 were included. Two independent examiners conducted the search and the review process. RESULTS: The search generated 903 titles. Eighteen qualifying studies were retrieved for full-text evaluation. Nine studies were included on the basis of preestablished criteria. Eight studies reported satisfactory clinical and esthetic outcomes. One study demonstrated prosthesis failure. Clinical studies are lacking on the long-term outcome of complete-arch implant-supported monolithic zirconia prostheses. CONCLUSIONS: Complete-arch dental implant restoration with monolithic zirconia is associated with high short-term success. Despite the many advantages and short-term favorable reports, studies of longer duration are necessary to validate the broad application of this therapy.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Monolithic zirconia prostheses are emerging as a promising option in the implant-based rehabilitations of edentulouspatients, yet their clinical performance is not fully documented. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the clinical performance of complete-arch implant-supported monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The electronic databases PubMed, Science Direct, and Cochrane Library were searched for clinical studies on complete-arch implant-supported monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses. Human studies with a mean follow-up of at least 1 year and published in an English-language peer-reviewed journal up to June 2015 were included. Two independent examiners conducted the search and the review process. RESULTS: The search generated 903 titles. Eighteen qualifying studies were retrieved for full-text evaluation. Nine studies were included on the basis of preestablished criteria. Eight studies reported satisfactory clinical and esthetic outcomes. One study demonstrated prosthesis failure. Clinical studies are lacking on the long-term outcome of complete-arch implant-supported monolithic zirconia prostheses. CONCLUSIONS: Complete-arch dental implant restoration with monolithic zirconia is associated with high short-term success. Despite the many advantages and short-term favorable reports, studies of longer duration are necessary to validate the broad application of this therapy.
Authors: Paolo De Angelis; Giulio Gasparini; Francesca Camodeca; Silvio De Angelis; Margherita Giorgia Liguori; Edoardo Rella; Francesca Cannata; Antonio D'Addona; Paolo Francesco Manicone Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2021-07-06 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: João Paulo Mendes Tribst; Amanda Maria de Oliveira Dal Piva; Roberto Lo Giudice; Alexandre Luiz Souto Borges; Marco Antonio Bottino; Ettore Epifania; Pietro Ausiello Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-06-05 Impact factor: 3.390