Full‐arch implant‐supported rehabilitations: A prospective study comparing porcelain‐veneered zirconia frameworks to monolithic zirconia

Abstract

Objectives To evaluate the performance of two types of zirconia frameworks. Material and Methods From 2014 to 2016, in a prospective clinical trial, 150 patients were rehabilitated with 83 and 110 implant‐supported, screw‐retained, full‐arch ceramic‐veneered zirconia (PVZ) rehabilitations and monolithic zirconia with porcelain veneering limited to buccal (MZ) rehabilitations, respectively. Patients were consecutively enlisted according to pre‐defined inclusion criteria and evaluated on 4 months intervals. A Kaplan–Meier estimator was adopted, and the log‐rank test and Wilcoxon test used to test differences in survival and successful function in the two different groups. Results The average follow‐up time (±SD) and implant success rate was 608.80 ± 172.52 days with 99.53% implant success for the PVZ group and 552.63 ± 197.57 days with 99.83% success for the MZ group. According to the Kaplan–Meier estimator, the mean cumulative survival rate at the 2‐year follow‐up for framework fracture, major chipping, minor chipping, or any of the former combined to occur was 0.99, 0.95, 0.93 and 0.85 for the PVZ group (n = 18) and 0.99, 0.95, 0.95 and 0.89 for the MZ group (n = 15). No significant differences were found between the two groups. Conclusions Results suggest zirconia as a suitable material for frameworks in full‐arch implant‐supported rehabilitations. Both groups presented a low incidence of technical complications. When comparing the two different designs, the MZ group presented a lower technical complication rate, thus presenting itself as a viable alternative for full‐arch implant‐supported rehabilitations. Further clinical studies with longer follow‐ups (5 years) should be performed to evaluate the long‐term stability of such rehabilitations.

Clinical Evaluation of Wear Behavior of Human Enamel and Chipping of Veneered Zirconia against Monolithic Zirconia (Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial)

“…No chipping in the veneered group could be attributed to production of anatomical supporting frameworks for the veneering porcelain, better control of firing and cooling cycles as well as the use of specific veneering ceramic VM9 with smaller mismatches of coefficients of thermal expansion with substructure. [41] The results also were in accordance with the results of Konstantinidis et al, 2018 [42] with no chipping for monolithic zirconia after 1 year follow up and all restorations were reported as alpha. Also, it was consistent with Malkondu et al, 2016 [43] who reported that monolithic zirconia ceramics were found to have superior chipping resistance.…”

Framework Materials for Full-Arch Implant-Supported Rehabilitations: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies

“…A total of 11 additional articles were excluded after full-text review and application of the eligibility criteria (the most frequent reason for exclusion being redundancy of publication) [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. The final selection consisted of 11 articles [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37].…”

“…They were published between 1999 and 2020. Four studies were conducted in Italy [31,[33][34][35]; four in Sweden [27,28], by Ortorp et al [30,32]; one in UK [29]; one in USA [37], and one in Portugal [36].…”

Ceramic Materials and Technologies Applied to Digital Works in Implant-Supported Restorative Dentistry

“…There have been few papers reporting the long-term clinical results of fixed implant-supported monolithic Y-TZP restorations for periods of over five years [57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64]. The five-year survival rate is estimated to be over 90% in complete-arch fixed implant-supported monolithic Y-TZP prostheses [57,64].…”