Five-year follow-up of implant-supported Y-TZP and ZTA fixed dental prostheses. A randomized, prospective clinical trial comparing two different material systems

DSpace Repository

Five-year follow-up of implant-supported Y-TZP and ZTA fixed dental prostheses. A randomized, prospective clinical trial comparing two different material systems

Show full item record

Files for download

Find Full text There are no files associated with this item..

Facebook

Simple item record

Publication Article, peer reviewed scientific
Title Five-year follow-up of implant-supported Y-TZP and ZTA fixed dental prostheses. A randomized, prospective clinical trial comparing two different material systems
Author(s) Larsson, Christel ; Vult von Steyern, Per
Date 2010
English abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of two- to five-unit implant-supported all-ceramic restorations and to compare the results of two different all-ceramic systems, Denzir (DZ) and In-Ceram Zirconia (InZ). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen patients were treated with a total of 25 two- to five-unit implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. Nine patients were given DZ system restorations and 9 were given InZ system restorations. The restorations were cemented with zinc phosphate cement onto customized titanium abutments and were evaluated after 1, 3, and 5 years. RESULTS: At the 5-year follow-up, all restorations were in function; none had fractured. However, superficial cohesive (chip-off) fractures were observed in 9 of 18 patients (11 of 25 restorations). Sixteen units in the DZ group (9 of 13 restorations) and 3 in the InZ group (2 of 12 restorations) had chip-off fractures. The difference between the two groups regarding frequency of chip-off fractures was statistically significant (P < .05 at the FDP level and P < .001 at the unit level). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that all-ceramic implant-supported fixed dental prostheses of two to five units may be considered a treatment alternative. The DZ system, however, exhibited an unacceptable amount of veneering porcelain fractures and thus cannot be recommended for the type of treatment evaluated in this trial. Poor compatibility or problems with the bond mechanisms between the veneer and framework could not explain the chip-off fractures. Stress distribution, as well as other factors concerning the veneering porcelain, need to be evaluated further.
Host/Issue International Journal of Prosthodontics;6
Volume 23
ISSN 0893-2174
Pages 555-61
Language eng (iso)
Subject(s) Medicine
Research Subject Categories::ODONTOLOGY
Research Subject Categories::ODONTOLOGY::Oral prosthetics
Handle http://hdl.handle.net/2043/11499 (link to this page)

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show full item record

Search


Browse

My Account

Statistics