Literature DB >> 33628810

Patient Satisfaction with Implant-Supported Monolithic and Partially Veneered Zirconia Restorations.

Paolo De Angelis1, Giulio Gasparini2, Edoardo Rella1, Silvio De Angelis3, Cristina Grippaudo1, Antonio D'Addona1, Paolo Francesco Manicone1.   

Abstract

The digital workflow and the application of Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAM) to prosthodontics present the clinician with the possibility of adopting new materials that confer several advantages. Especially in the case of zirconia, these innovations have profoundly changed daily practice. This paper compares the satisfaction and perception of patients who received implant-supported single crowns (SC) and fixed partial dentures (FPD) made from zirconia, either monolithic or partially veneered, after 3 years of follow-up; the success and survival rate of these restorations were also measured. Forty patients, who had been previously treated with implant-supported SC or FPD, either monolithic or partially veneered, and submitted to a yearly maintenance program, were recalled 3 years after their treatment and requested to complete an 8-question questionnaire regarding their perceptions of the treatment. Any mechanical or biological complication that had occurred from the time of delivery was also recorded. Patients that experienced ≥1 complication were less likely to be prone to repeat the treatment. The 3-year success rate was 92.6% for monolithic restoration and 92.3% for partially veneered restoration, while the survival rate was 100% for both restorations. The 3-year follow-up found that monolithic and partially veneered zirconia restorations are both well-accepted treatment options, and patients preferred the veneered restorations (0.76, p < 0.05) from an aesthetic point of view. According to our results, monolithic and veneered zirconia restorations are both reliable treatment options and are both equally accepted by patients.
Copyright © 2021 Paolo De Angelis et al.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33628810      PMCID: PMC7884129          DOI: 10.1155/2021/6692939

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biomed Res Int            Impact factor:   3.411


  39 in total

Review 1.  Survival and complications of zirconia-based fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review.

Authors:  Ariel J Raigrodski; Matthew B Hillstead; Graham K Meng; Kwok-Hung Chung
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 3.426

2.  Light transmittance by a multi-coloured zirconia material.

Authors:  Kazuhiko Ueda; Jan-Frederik Güth; Kurt Erdelt; Michael Stimmelmayr; Heinrich Kappert; Florian Beuer
Journal:  Dent Mater J       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 2.102

3.  Clinical performance of tooth- or implant-supported veneered zirconia single crowns: 42-month results.

Authors:  Friederike Cantner; Claudio Cacaci; Thomas Mücke; Peter Randelzhofer; Jan Hajtó; Florian Beuer
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2019-03-18       Impact factor: 3.573

4.  Monolithic CAD-CAM lithium disilicate versus monolithic CAD-CAM zirconia for single implant-supported posterior crowns using a digital workflow: A 3-year cross-sectional retrospective study.

Authors:  Paolo De Angelis; Pier Carmine Passarelli; Giulio Gasparini; Roberto Boniello; Giuseppe D'Amato; Silvio De Angelis
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2019-06-12       Impact factor: 3.426

5.  Fit Accuracy of Pressed and Milled Lithium Disilicate Inlays Fabricated From Conventional Impressions or a Laboratory-Based Digital Workflow.

Authors:  F Homsy; M Bottin; M Özcan; Z Majzoub
Journal:  Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent       Date:  2019-02-22

Review 6.  Peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis: Case definitions and diagnostic considerations.

Authors:  Stefan Renvert; G Rutger Persson; Flavia Q Pirih; Paulo M Camargo
Journal:  J Periodontol       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 6.993

Review 7.  Current status of zirconia restoration.

Authors:  Takashi Miyazaki; Takashi Nakamura; Hideo Matsumura; Seiji Ban; Taira Kobayashi
Journal:  J Prosthodont Res       Date:  2013-10-18       Impact factor: 4.642

8.  Clinical sequelae and patients' perception of dental implant removal: A cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Jordi Gargallo-Albiol; Lorenzo Tavelli; Shayan Barootchi; Alberto Monje; Hom-Lay Wang
Journal:  J Periodontol       Date:  2020-10-21       Impact factor: 6.993

9.  Patient and Operator Centered Outcomes in Implant Dentistry: Comparison between Fully Digital and Conventional Workflow for Single Crown and Three-Unit Fixed-Bridge.

Authors:  Paolo De Angelis; Paolo Francesco Manicone; Silvio De Angelis; Cristina Grippaudo; Giulio Gasparini; Margherita Giorgia Liguori; Francesca Camodeca; Giovan Battista Piccirillo; Viviana Desantis; Giuseppe D'Amato; Antonio D'Addona
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2020-06-19       Impact factor: 3.623

Review 10.  Wear in Antagonist Teeth Produced by Monolithic Zirconia Crowns: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  María Fernanda Solá-Ruíz; Alejandra Baima-Moscardó; Eduardo Selva-Otaolaurruchi; José María Montiel-Company; Rubén Agustín-Panadero; Carla Fons-Badal; Lucía Fernández-Estevan
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-04-02       Impact factor: 4.241

View more
  2 in total

1.  Clinical Outcome of Fully Digital Workflow for Single-Implant-Supported Crowns: A Retrospective Clinical Study.

Authors:  Francesco Gianfreda; Paolo Pesce; Erich Marcano; Valeria Pistilli; Patrizio Bollero; Luigi Canullo
Journal:  Dent J (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-27

2.  Monolithic zirconia single tooth implant-supported restorations with CAD/CAM titanium abutments in the posterior region: A 1-year prospective case series study.

Authors:  Vincent J J Donker; Gerry M Raghoebar; Charlotte Jensen-Louwerse; Arjan Vissink; Henny J A Meijer
Journal:  Clin Implant Dent Relat Res       Date:  2022-01-24       Impact factor: 4.259

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.