RESUMO
Objective: the purpose of this multicenter retrospective study was to report on survival, success, and complication rates in monolithic zirconia restorations on teeth and implants. Materials and Methods: data on 671 monolithic zirconia restorations was collected by five prosthodontists from three different specialty practice centers, including a dental school and two private practice centers. Restorations included single crowns and multiple-unit fixed dental prostheses on teeth and implants in the posterior area (premolar and molars). Follow-up time was up to 62 months. Results: mean follow-up time was 28.1±12.9 months. A total of 671 units, 534 single crowns, and 137 multi-unit restorations. Cumulative survival and success rates at 5 years were 97.4%, and 93.8% respectively. Complications presented in 11 restorations out of 671 and included: decementation, abutment screw loosening, restoration crack, restoration fracture, and tooth fracture. No significant differences were observed between tooth-supported and implant-supported restoration (p=0.42), single crowns and multiple-unit restorations (p=0.07), bruxers and non-bruxers (p=0.57). Patients with group function occlusal scheme had significantly less survival rates (p=0.001). Conclusion: the use of monolithic zirconia for restorations on the posterior teeth and implants seems to be promising as it provides a durable solution with a low rate of complications.
Objetivo: el propósito de este estudio retrospectivo multicéntrico fue informar sobre las tasas de supervivencia, éxito y complicaciones en restauraciones monolíticas de circonio en dientes e implantes. Materiales y Métodos: cinco prostodoncistas recolectaron datos de 671 restauraciones monolíticas de zirconia de tres centros de práctica especializados: una escuela de odontología y dos centros de práctica privados. Las restauraciones incluyeron coronas individuales y prótesis dentales fijas de unidades múltiples en dientes e implantes en el área posterior (premolares y molares). El tiempo de seguimiento fue de hasta 62 meses. Resultados: el tiempo medio de seguimiento fue de 28,1±12,9 meses. Un total de 671 unidades, 534 coronas individuales y 137 restauraciones de unidades múltiples. La supervivencia acumulada y las tasas de éxito a los 5 años fueron del 97,4% y del 93,8%, respectivamente. Las complicaciones se presentaron en 11 restauraciones de 671 e incluyeron: fracaso del cementado, aflojamiento del tornillo del pilar, grieta en la restauración, fractura de restauración y fractura de dientes. No se observaron diferencias significativas entre la restauración con soporte dental y con implante (p=0,42), coronas individuales y restauraciones de unidades múltiples (p=0,07), pacientes con bruxismo y sin bruxismo (p=0,57). Los pacientes con esquema oclusal de función grupal tuvieron tasas de supervivencia significativamente menores (p= 0,0 01). Conclusión: el uso de zirconia monolítica para restauraciones en los dientes posteriores y en implantes parece ser prometedor, ya que proporciona una solución duradera con una baja tasa de complicaciones.
Assuntos
Humanos , Zircônio/química , Implantes Dentários para Um Único Dente , Implantação Dentária Endóssea , Fraturas dos Dentes , Estudos Retrospectivos , Resultado do Tratamento , Retenção em Prótese Dentária/estatística & dados numéricos , Coroas , Cimentos DentáriosRESUMO
PURPOSE: To evaluate labial and palatal bone thickness at the maxillary anterior teeth as well as distance from cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) to bone crest using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Measurements were obtained for maxillary anterior teeth of 120 subject CBCT volumes including thickness of labial and palatal plates of bone (coronal, middle, and apical thirds), and distance between CEJ and alveolar bone crest mid-labially, mesially, and distally. RESULTS: The mean value of bone thickness at coronal, middle, and apical thirds of the labial side for central incisor roots were respectively: 0.73, 0.69, 0.60 (mm), for lateral incisors: 0.70, 0.61, 0.49 (mm), and for canines: 0.74, 0.53, 040 (mm). The thickness of palatal bone was significantly larger. The mean distance between CEJ and mid-labial bone crest for all sites was 2.16 mm. CONCLUSION: Labial bone thickness is thin in the vast majority of maxillary anterior teeth. Use of CBCT facilitates planning for immediate implant placement and is helpful in the decision-making process when further bone augmentation is needed.