Paolo De Angelis1, Pier Carmine Passarelli2, Giulio Gasparini3, Roberto Boniello4, Giuseppe D'Amato4, Silvio De Angelis5. 1. Oral Surgery Resident, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart Medical School, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: dr.paolodeangelis@gmail.com. 2. Oral Surgery Resident, Department of Oral Surgery, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart Medical School, Rome, Italy. 3. Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart Medical School, Rome, Italy. 4. Attending Physician, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart Medical School, Rome, Italy. 5. Private practice, Ascoli Piceno, Italy.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Dentistry has evolved significantly with the introduction of digital technologies and materials; however, clinical evidence for the performance of the complete digital workflow for single implant-supported posterior crowns is lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this cross-sectional retrospective clinical study was to compare the clinical outcomes of 2 types of implant-supported crown used to replace a single missing posterior tooth in a completely digital workflow: transocclusal screw-retained monolithic lithium disilicate crowns versus transocclusal screw-retained monolithic zirconia crowns. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 38 participants who had been provided with dental implants and transocclusal screw-retained monolithic lithium disilicate or zirconia single crowns were evaluated in the study. Clinical and esthetic outcomes were recorded after a 3-year follow-up. RESULTS: Both groups had comparable clinical outcomes with a survival rate of 100%. In the lithium disilicate group, 89% of the participants were free of technical complications, and 95%, in the zirconia group. Only 1 patient experienced minor chipping affecting a lithium disilicate crown. All complications were considered minor and were easily resolved, and none of the participants required replacement of a crown. No biological complications were recorded in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this cross-sectional retrospective clinical study, monolithic lithium disilicate and zirconia screw-retained single crowns fabricated using computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) and a fully digital workflow were found to be reliable and suitable clinical options for restoring a posterior missing tooth on a dental implant.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Dentistry has evolved significantly with the introduction of digital technologies and materials; however, clinical evidence for the performance of the complete digital workflow for single implant-supported posterior crowns is lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this cross-sectional retrospective clinical study was to compare the clinical outcomes of 2 types of implant-supported crown used to replace a single missing posterior tooth in a completely digital workflow: transocclusal screw-retained monolithic lithium disilicate crowns versus transocclusal screw-retained monolithic zirconia crowns. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 38 participants who had been provided with dental implants and transocclusal screw-retained monolithic lithium disilicate or zirconia single crowns were evaluated in the study. Clinical and esthetic outcomes were recorded after a 3-year follow-up. RESULTS: Both groups had comparable clinical outcomes with a survival rate of 100%. In the lithium disilicate group, 89% of the participants were free of technical complications, and 95%, in the zirconia group. Only 1 patient experienced minor chipping affecting a lithium disilicate crown. All complications were considered minor and were easily resolved, and none of the participants required replacement of a crown. No biological complications were recorded in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this cross-sectional retrospective clinical study, monolithic lithium disilicate and zirconia screw-retained single crowns fabricated using computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) and a fully digital workflow were found to be reliable and suitable clinical options for restoring a posterior missing tooth on a dental implant.
Authors: Paolo De Angelis; Paolo Francesco Manicone; Giulio Gasparini; Silvio De Angelis; Margherita Giorgia Liguori; Ilaria De Filippis; Antonio D'Addona Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2021-01-05 Impact factor: 3.411
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: Pier Carmine Passarelli; Stefano Pagnoni; Giovan Battista Piccirillo; Viviana Desantis; Michele Benegiamo; Antonio Liguori; Raffaele Papa; Piero Papi; Giorgio Pompa; Antonio D'Addona Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-04-09 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Paolo De Angelis; Giulio Gasparini; Edoardo Rella; Silvio De Angelis; Cristina Grippaudo; Antonio D'Addona; Paolo Francesco Manicone Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2021-02-06 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Frank A Spitznagel; Estevam A Bonfante; Tiago M B Campos; Maximilian A Vollmer; Johannes Boldt; Sam Doerken; Petra C Gierthmuehlen Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2021-12-08 Impact factor: 3.623