Clinical evaluation of monolithic zirconia crowns for posterior teeth restorations

Abstract

Although all-ceramic crowns have excellent biocompatibility and esthetic appearance, chipping may occur. The mechanical properties of monolithic zirconia restorative material are superior to those of all-ceramic restorative materials, and chipping caused by chewing hard foods could be avoided. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of monolithic zirconia crowns for posterior teeth restorations.A total of 46 patients requiring posterior teeth restorations involving 49 teeth were treated with monolithic zirconia crown procedure. The treatment results were evaluated according to the modified California Dental Association criteria immediately after the procedure, and at 2, 24, 48, and 96 weeks after the procedure. The plaque index, gingival index, probing depth, crown marginal integrity, and attrition of the abutment teeth, antagonist teeth, corresponding contralateral teeth, and antagonist of the corresponding contralateral teeth were assessed. The patients were followed for up to 96 weeks.The marginal adaptation results of all 46 patients were evaluated as excellent, resulting in an excellent rate of 100%. Regarding the crown color match, only 3 cases (6.1%) were evaluated as acceptable. Marginal adaptation, anatomic form, crown margin integrity, color match, and gross fracture did not show significant differences compared with the different time points (P = .999). Surface texture at different time did not change significantly (P = .807). During the 96-week follow-up, 1 crack in the antagonist teeth was found in 1 patient. There were no significant differences in wear of the antagonist teeth at different time points (P = .972). The rate of “excellent” evaluation for crown restorations was 93.9% to 100%.The monolithic zirconia crown had no detectable adverse effects on the periodontal tissues, and the antagonist teeth attrition was small. Therefore, it has good potential in the clinical application of posterior teeth restorations in the short term.

Prospective Clinical Evaluation of Posterior Monolithic Zirconia Fixed Partial Dentures Using a Complete Digital Workflow: Two‐Year Follow‐Up

“…The periodontal status was assessed by determining the plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), pocket depth, and margin index (MI) or margin stability 50 . These parameters were evaluated in the abutment (test) and control teeth (contralateral or opposite not crowned teeth) 6,15,21,24,29,35,43,48,51–52 . Standardized parallelized periapical radiographs of the abutment teeth using a X‐ray positioner (Rinn; Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC) and clinical photographs of the restorations under standardized conditions were obtained at each evaluation (Fig 4).…”

Reattachment of a Dehydrated Tooth Fragment Using Retentive Screws

“…Dental trauma can be caused due to accidental falls or sports injuries such as football, baseball, basketball, and hockey [1]. Chewing and munching on hard foods and objects such as nuts, frozen ice cubes, and candies can also lead to tooth crack or tooth fracture [2]. Dental trauma might have a severe influence on the social and psychological life of a patient [3].…”

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

“…However, in the study by Esquivel-Upshaw [13] there were no statistically significant differences between the wear in the antagonist enamel with respect to monolithic zirconia restorations and with respect to ceramic-metallic ones and in the natural tooth. Lastly, Tang [3], measured the antagonist enamel wear according to the degree of attrition, where 6.12% of monolithic zirconia restorations produce Grade 1 wear in the antagonist enamel (wear only in the enamel and changes in the occlusal surface morphology); a further 6.12% produces Grade 2 wear (light wear in the dentine, exposure of the occlusal dentine with an area ≤2 mm 2 , and a reduction in the crown height due to morphological changes on the occlusal surface).…”

“…Following from this, there has been extensive development of monolithic zirconia materials milled from solid blocks using CAD-CAM technology and without any additional porcelain coating. This material offers favorable mechanical characteristics such as high degree of hardness (1387 Hv) and its resistance to fracture (900-1200 MPa) [3,4] has led to the widespread use of monolithic zirconia (MZ) as an alternative to veneered zirconia restorations, as well as to the classical metal-ceramic restorations indicated in fixed dental prostheses (FDP) [5].…”

“…One of the factors that may influence the results of enamel wear on such restorations is the position of the restoration, either molars or premolars [7], as well as the degree of attrition or the parafunctional habits of patients [3,14,19]. Besides, reference is also made to the influence of the patient's sex or age [14].…”