» Articles » PMID: 22545251

A Randomized, Prospective, Open-ended Clinical Trial of Zirconia Fixed Partial Dentures on Teeth and Implants: Interim Results

Overview
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2012 May 1
PMID 22545251
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to compare the outcomes of zirconia crowns and fixed partial dentures (FPDs) supported by teeth or implants.

Materials And Methods: Patients were recruited based on inclusion/exclusion criteria, and 59 eligible subjects were assigned randomly to treatment by one of four zirconia systems (Cercon, ZirkonZahn, Lava, and Katana). One hundred seven single-tooth and 160 three- to six-unit FPDs were fabricated on teeth and implants and cemented using composite resin cement. Californian Dental Association (CDA) quality evaluation, Plaque Index, and Gingival Index scores were recorded, and radiographic assessment of the restorations was performed using periapical and panoramic radiographs at baseline and annually up to 4 years.

Results: Five failures (1.9%) were recorded. The 4-year Kaplan-Meier survival probabilities of FPDs were higher than those of single-tooth restorations (P = .046). The highest survival probability for crowns was observed for Katana and the lowest for Cercon (P < .05). For FPDs, the survival probabilities of Lava restorations were similar to those of Cercon but lower than those of ZirkonZahn and Katana (P < .05). The 4-year survival probabilities of implant- and tooth-supported crowns were comparable (P = .182). Regarding CDA ratings, the slight marginal discrepancy scores for the Cercon restorations were higher than for the other systems at 1 year (P < .05). In FPDs, 94.5% of Katana FPDs had slight or gross color mismatch scores, and the difference between color and surface ratings among zirconia systems was significant (P < .05). FPDs had better periodontal scores than crowns over the 4-year observation period (P < .05).

Conclusion: The 4-year interim results of this study suggest that zirconia systems used to fabricate FPDs have predictably high survival rates on teeth and implants and may exhibit differences, particularly in terms of mechanical failures, marginal adaptation, and color matching.

Citing Articles

Clinical outcomes of tooth-supported monolithic zirconia vs. porcelain-veneered zirconia fixed dental prosthesis, with an additional focus on the cement type: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Shihabi S, Chrcanovic B Clin Oral Investig. 2023; 27(10):5755-5769.

PMID: 37626273 PMC: 10560185. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05219-4.


Do tooth-supported zirconia restorations present more technical failures related to fracture or loss of retention? Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Gonzaga C, Garcia P, Wambier L, Prochnow F, Madeira L, Cesar P Clin Oral Investig. 2022; 26(8):5129-5142.

PMID: 35660957 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-022-04573-z.


Metal-free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations.

Poggio C, Ercoli C, Rispoli L, Maiorana C, Esposito M Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017; 12:CD009606.

PMID: 29261853 PMC: 6486204. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009606.pub2.


A systematic review of outcome measurements and quality of studies evaluating fixed tooth-supported restorations.

Patel D, OBrien T, Petrie A, Petridis H J Prosthodont. 2014; 23(6):421-33.

PMID: 24947268 PMC: 4491372. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12160.