Mustafa Barış Güncü1, Umut Cakan2, Guliz Aktas3, Güliz Nigar Güncü4, Şenay Canay3. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey. barisguncu@hacettepe.edu.tr. 2. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Medipol University, İstanbul, Turkey. 3. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey. 4. Department of Periodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the 4-year clinical performance of tooth versus implant-supported single-unit zirconia crowns (LAVA™) placed on posterior region. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients (10 men and 14 women) who had received 48 single crowns (24 implant-supported and 24 tooth-supported) from January 2007 to December 2009, were included. California Dental Association (CDA) quality assessment system, plaque and gingival index scores were used to evaluate the performance of the crowns at baseline and at all follow-up examinations. RESULTS: During the follow-up period, no fracture of zirconia coping has occurred. Major complication was chipping in three patients that required a new crown fabrication. Except for the failure ones, all crowns in both groups were rated as satisfactory at the follow-up examinations based on the CDA quality assessment criteria. There were no statistically significant differences between tooth and implant-supported crowns in terms of periodontal parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The present 4-year follow-up clinical study demonstrates that single-unit tooth- and implant-supported zirconia crowns have similar prosthetic and periodontal outcomes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Single-unit implant or tooth-supported zirconia crowns may be considered acceptable treatment modalities for restoration of either missing or compromised posterior teeth.
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the 4-year clinical performance of tooth versus implant-supported single-unit zirconia crowns (LAVA™) placed on posterior region. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients (10 men and 14 women) who had received 48 single crowns (24 implant-supported and 24 tooth-supported) from January 2007 to December 2009, were included. California Dental Association (CDA) quality assessment system, plaque and gingival index scores were used to evaluate the performance of the crowns at baseline and at all follow-up examinations. RESULTS: During the follow-up period, no fracture of zirconia coping has occurred. Major complication was chipping in three patients that required a new crown fabrication. Except for the failure ones, all crowns in both groups were rated as satisfactory at the follow-up examinations based on the CDA quality assessment criteria. There were no statistically significant differences between tooth and implant-supported crowns in terms of periodontal parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The present 4-year follow-up clinical study demonstrates that single-unit tooth- and implant-supported zirconia crowns have similar prosthetic and periodontal outcomes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Single-unit implant or tooth-supported zirconia crowns may be considered acceptable treatment modalities for restoration of either missing or compromised posterior teeth.
Entities:
Keywords:
All ceramic; Clinical; Dental implants; Follow-up study; Zirconia
Authors: Ronald E Jung; Irena Sailer; Christoph H F Hämmerle; Thomas Attin; Patrick Schmidlin Journal: Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 1.840