Monolithic zirconia as a valid alternative to metal-ceramic for implant-supported single crowns in the posterior region: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Tajti, Péter; Solyom, Eleonora; Czumbel, László Márk; Szabó, Bence; Fazekas, Réka; Németh, Orsolya; Hermann, Péter; Gerber, Gábor; Hegyi, Péter; Mikulás, Krisztina

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.05.006

Cited by 8 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The absence of layered silicate ceramic reduces the risk of chipping. However, clinical evidence for the use of monolithic zirconia on implants is scarce, and no long‐term data are available (Horsch et al., 2022; Tajti et al., 2023). To evaluate the performance of 4Y‐PSZ as a restorative material for ICFDPs, in vitro studies that simulate the effect of aging are needed, especially with nonaxial loading as a worst‐case scenario.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of implant type on the stability of cantilever fixed dental prostheses: An in vitro study

Rohr,

Karakas‐Stupar,

Karlin

et al. 2024

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo simulate the replacement of a premolar with an implant‐supported cantilever fixed dental prosthesis (ICFDP) and how the fracture load is affected by implant type, positioning within the zirconia blank, and aging protocol.Materials and MethodsSeventy‐two ICFDPs were designed either within the enamel‐ or dentin layer of a 4Y‐PSZ blank for bone‐level and tissue‐level titanium‐zirconium implants. Fracture load was obtained on the cantilever at baseline (no aging) or after aging in a chewing simulator with the load applied within the implant axis (axial aging) or on the cantilever (12 groups with n = 6). A three‐way ANOVA was applied (α = .05).ResultsA three‐way ANOVA revealed a significant effect on fracture load values of implant type (p = .006) and aging (p < .001) but not for the position within the zirconia blank (p = .847). Fracture load values significantly increased from baseline bone level (608 ± 118 N) and tissue level (880 ± 293 N) when the implants were aged axially, with higher values for tissue level (1065 ± 182 N) than bone level (797 ± 113 N) (p < .001). However, when the force was applied to the cantilever, fracture load values decreased significantly for tissue‐level (493 ± 70 N), while values for bone‐level implants remained stable (690 ± 135 N).ConclusionsFor ICFDPs, the use of bone‐level implants is reasonable as catastrophic failures are likely to be restricted to the restoration, whereas with tissue‐level implants, the transmucosal portion of the implant is susceptible to deformation, making repair more difficult.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%