Three‐year analysis of zirconia implants used for single‐tooth replacement and three‐unit fixed dental prostheses: A prospective multicenter study

Balmer, Marc; Spies, Benedikt Christopher; Vach, Kirstin; Kohal, Ralf‐Joachim; Hämmerle, Christoph H. F.; Jung, Ronald E.

doi:10.1111/clr.13115

Cited by 39 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Detailed information on the clinical and laboratory procedures was given in precedent publications reporting mid‐term results after 36 months of observation (Balmer et al, ; Spies et al, ). In brief, implants were immediately temporized with prefabricated provisional reconstructions.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

All‐ceramic single crowns supported by zirconia implants: 5‐year results of a prospective multicenter study

Spies

Balmer

Jung

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To assess survival/success rates and patient‐reported outcome of zirconia‐based posterior single crowns (SCs) supported by zirconia implants in a prospective two‐center study after five years of observation. Material and methods Forty‐five patients were restored with 45 zirconia implant‐supported posterior SCs composed of zirconia frameworks hand‐layered with a leucite‐reinforced feldspathic ceramic. Survival rates of SCs were assessed and technical success was evaluated according to modified United States Public Health Care (USPHS) criteria. Furthermore, patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed by applying visual analog scales (VAS). Wilcoxon matched‐pairs signed‐rank test, mixed‐effects ordered logistic regression, and linear mixed models were used to evaluate time effects on response variables. Results Forty patients were available after a mean observation period of 61.0 ± 1.4 months. One SC had to be replaced, resulting in a Kaplan–Meier (KM) survival estimate for the SCs of 97.5 ± 2.47%. Since nine reconstructions showed at least in one category a major deviation from the ideal (five major chippings, four with increased occlusal roughness, one significant crevice, and one pronounced over‐contouring), the KM success estimate was 79.3 ± 5.8%. Incidence of chipping (n = 19) and occlusal roughness (n = 35) was frequent (p < 0.001). All PROMs at prosthetic delivery except for speech (p = 0.139) showed significantly improved VAS scores (81%–94%; p < 0.001) compared to pre‐treatment evaluations. Thereafter, no decrease in satisfaction could be observed until the 5‐year follow‐up (93%–97%). Conclusion Veneered zirconia‐based SCs supported by zirconia implants showed high survival rates and highly satisfied patients' needs. However, significant incidence of technical complications is compromising the clinical long‐term outcome for this indication.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Detailed information on the clinical and laboratory procedures was given in precedent publications reporting mid-term results after 36 months of observation (Balmer et al, 2018;.…”

Section: Clinical and Laboratory Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

All‐ceramic single crowns supported by zirconia implants: 5‐year results of a prospective multicenter study

Spies

Balmer

Jung

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Implants made from zirconia (ZrO 2 ) have been introduced as a possible alternative to titanium implants (Andreiotelli, Wenz, & Kohal, ; Pieralli, Kohal, Jung, Vach, & Spiess, ) with a survival rate of 95.6% after 1 year and an expected further decrease of 0.05% per year afterward (i.e., 0.25% after 5 years) (Pieralli et al, ). A multicenter study showed a survival rate of 98.5% and a low marginal bone loss for one‐piece zirconia implants for single‐tooth replacement and three‐unit FDPs, after 3 years in function (Balmer et al, ). Zirconia, an inert and biocompatible ceramic (Depprich et al, ; Moller et al, ), offers promising physical properties with a high fracture strength (900–1,600 MPa, Piconi et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Loading capacity of CAD/CAM‐fabricated anterior feldspathic ceramic crowns bonded to one‐piece zirconia implants with different cements

Nueesch

Conejo

Mante

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This study evaluated the loading capacity of CAD/CAM‐fabricated anterior feldspathic ceramic crowns bonded to one‐piece zirconia implants with different cements. Material and methods Fifty one‐piece zirconia implants were embedded in epoxy resin. The abutment aspect of one implant was optically scanned and a standardized upper canine was designed with CAD‐software. Fifty feldspathic ceramic crowns were milled, polished, and mounted on the implants either without any cement, with a temporary cement or with three different composite resin cements after surface pretreatment as recommended by the manufacturers (n = 10). After storage in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hr, specimens were loaded until fracture on the palatal surface of the crown at an angle of 45° to the long axis of the implant and loads until fracture were detected and compared. Compressive strength of the investigated cement materials was determined. Statistical analyses were done with One‐way ANOVA followed by post hoc Fisher LSD test (α = 0.05). Results The cements revealed significantly different compressive strength values (temporary cement: 37.1 ± 7.0 MPa; composite resin cements: 185.8 ± 21.3, 277.9 ± 22.1, and 389.0 ± 13.6 MPa, respectively). Load‐at‐fracture values had an overall mean value of 237.1 ± 58.2 N with no significant difference among the composite resin cements (p > 0.05). Fracture load values with the temporary cement or without cement were significantly lower (p < 0.002). Conclusions CAD/CAM‐fabricated anterior feldspathic ceramic crowns bonded to one‐piece zirconia implants provide sufficient resistance to intraoral forces.

show abstract

“…The success of implant therapy depends on utilizing a coordinated approach including the accurate treatment planning, accurate surgical technique and precise prosthesis [1]. Posterior single tooth replacement techniques include: 1) removable partial dentures, 2) prosthesis bonded with resin, 3) fixed partial denture and 4) implant-supported prosthetic [2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The condition of the soft tissue around the implant-based coating 3 years after insertion was analyzed and revealed that after insertion of the coatings, the tissue became more stable and more favorable [1].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Periodontal Status of Adjacent Teeth to Posterior SingleTooth Implant during a One-Year Period after Restoration: A CrossSectional Study

Dabaghi-Tabriz

Fakhrzadeh

Babaloo

et al. 2018

Pesqui. bras. odontopediatria clín. integr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the periodontal status of teeth adjacent to the posterior single tooth implant during one year after restoration. Material and Methods: In this crosssectional study, 36 patients, which were systematically and had received the implant(s) of single posterior teeth over the past year were selected. The teeth adjacent to singleposterior tooth implants were evaluated regarding bleeding on probing, mobility, gingivitis and periodontal pockets during the follow up period of 3, 6 and 9 months under the supervision of two specialists. To investigate the relationship between periodontal statuses, the Chi-square test was used, and the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess statistical significance of periodontal indexes in the period under assessment. The p-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant. Results: There was no significant relationship between the variable of bleeding on probing, mobility, gingivitis and periodontal pocket in the studied distal and mesial teeth. Out of studied patients, after 9 months, only 11.1% had one of the periodontal problems, as a result, 88.9% of crowns replacement of single-posterior tooth does not make any periodontal damages to adjacent teeth. Conclusion: Crowns replacement of implant does not have any destructive impact on periodontal condition of adjacent teeth.

show abstract

Three‐year analysis of zirconia implants used for single‐tooth replacement and three‐unit fixed dental prostheses: A prospective multicenter study

Cited by 39 publications

References 27 publications

All‐ceramic single crowns supported by zirconia implants: 5‐year results of a prospective multicenter study

All‐ceramic single crowns supported by zirconia implants: 5‐year results of a prospective multicenter study

Loading capacity of CAD/CAM‐fabricated anterior feldspathic ceramic crowns bonded to one‐piece zirconia implants with different cements

Evaluation of Periodontal Status of Adjacent Teeth to Posterior SingleTooth Implant during a One-Year Period after Restoration: A CrossSectional Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About