Clinical Advantages and Limitations of Monolithic Zirconia Restorations Full Arch Implant Supported Reconstruction: Case Series

Abstract

Purpose. The purpose of this retrospective case series is to evaluate the clinical advantages and limitations of monolithic zirconia restorations for full arch implant supported restorations and report the rate of complications up to 2 years after insertion. Materials and Methods. Fourteen patients received implant placement for monolithic zirconia full arch reconstructions. Four implants were placed in seven arches, eleven arches received six implants, two arches received seven implants, two arches received eight implants, and one arch received nine implants. Results. No implant failures or complications were reported for an implant survival rate of 100% with follow-up ranging from 3 to 24 months. Conclusions. Monolithic zirconia CAD-/CAM-milled framework restorations are a treatment option for full arch restorations over implants, showing a 96% success rate in the present study. Some of the benefits are accuracy, reduced veneering porcelain, and minimal occlusal adjustments. The outcome of the present study showed high success in function, aesthetics, phonetics, and high patient satisfaction.

Full‐arch implant‐supported rehabilitations: A prospective study comparing porcelain‐veneered zirconia frameworks to monolithic zirconia

“…Empirically, this alternative design presents the potential to reduce the rate of mechanical complications due to the elimination of the zirconia/porcelain interface from the functional surfaces. However, besides small sample studies that seem to show lower ceramic fracture rates, clinical evidence for this monolithic framework design is still scarce (Abdulmajeed et al, ; Altarawneh, Limmer, Reside, & Cooper, ; Carames, Tovar Suinaga, Yu, Pérez, & Kang, ; Rojas Vizcaya, ; Venezia, Torsello, Cavalcanti, & D'Amato, ).…”

Model‐less digital workflow for the replication of an existing complete fixed implant‐supported prosthesis using an intraoral scanner

“…The material chosen for the final CAFIP was ZO, as it would allow a balance between translucency and structural resistance . A zirconia structure is often constructed to be veneered with ceramic.…”

“…Zirconium oxide (ZO) is one of the materials suited for implant‐supported CAD/CAM rehabilitations, prepared via subtractive milling, as it offers good esthetics, biocompatibility, shade stability, low accumulation of plaque, good resistance to abrasion, and low thermal conductivity . Recent advances in the ZO technology were achieved by the production of variants with improved translucency that allows the construction of full‐contour restorations, combining esthetic results along with high mechanical properties …”

Metal stain on monolithic zirconia restoration: A case report

“…In the past, it was generally used as substructure for supporting veneering porcelain. However, in recent years, monolithic zirconia has been commonly used for fabrication of dental prosthesis, ranging from a single crown to full arch restoration 2. Owing to the high strength of monolithic zirconia, it overcomes the fracture or chipping problems associated with veneering porcelain 3.…”