Clinical Evaluation of the Influence of Connection Type and Restoration Height on the Reliability of Zirconia Abutments: A Retrospective Study on 965 Abutments with a Mean 6-Year Follow-Up

Fabbri, Giacomo; Fradeani, Mauro; Dellificorelli, Gianluca; Lorenzi, Marco De; Zarone, Fernando; Sorrentino, Roberto

doi:10.11607/prd.2974

Cited by 31 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…27 Another explanation for the high fracture rate in the current study could be the implant site, due to the fact that 4 out of 6 fractured abutments were located in premolar areas. 27 Another explanation for the high fracture rate in the current study could be the implant site, due to the fact that 4 out of 6 fractured abutments were located in premolar areas.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Cemented vs screw‐retained zirconia‐based single implant reconstructions: A 3‐year prospective randomized controlled clinical trial

Kraus

Epprecht

Hämmerle

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The objective of the present randomized clinical trial was to test whether or not the use of screw-retained all ceramic implant-borne reconstructions results in clinical, technical, and biologic outcomes similar to those obtained with cemented all ceramic reconstructions. The hypothesis was that there is no difference in clinical, technical, and biological parameters between the two types of retention.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Cemented vs screw‐retained zirconia‐based single implant reconstructions: A 3‐year prospective randomized controlled clinical trial

Kraus

Epprecht

Hämmerle

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Part 1 included two RCTs, one CCT, and five long‐term observational studies, which reported the survival rate of titanium implants with zirconia abutments. A total of 471 implants were included in the long‐term survival assessment (Table ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The mechanical frailty of zirconia abutments might be one possible reason to explain the contradiction. The mechanical complication rate of zirconia abutments ranged from 4.5% to 10% in the long term . However, almost all the zirconia abutments remained intact when peri‐implant indices were measured within a limited follow‐up, which the long‐term data of indices lacked.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long‐Term Survival and Peri‐Implant Health of Titanium Implants with Zirconia Abutments: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Cao

Chen

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the long‐term implant survival rate of titanium implants with zirconia abutments, and the effects of implants with zirconia abutments on marginal bone loss (MBL) and pocket probing depth (PPD) compared with all‐titanium implants. Materials and Methods The searched electronic database included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. Two types of studies were included: clinical studies reporting the survival rate of titanium implants with zirconia abutments with at least a mean/median 5‐year follow‐up, and clinical trials reporting the effects of implants with zirconia abutments on MBL and PPD compared with all‐titanium implants. Two reviewers screened and selected the records, assessed quality, and extracted data of included studies independently. Results This review included 16 studies from 18 publications. None of the comparative studies was assessed at a low risk of bias. The overall implant survival rate of implants with zirconia abutments was estimated to be 96% (confidence intervals [CIs] [94%, 98%], I2 = 0%). For the comparison between implants with zirconia abutments and all‐titanium implants, the results significantly favored implants with zirconia abutments (for MBL, mean difference [MD] = –0.09, CIs [–0.17, 0.00], p = 0.05, I2 = 40%; for PPD, MD = –0.18, CIs [–0.32, –0.05], p = 0.008, I2 = 0%). Zirconia abutments were favored more when the prosthesis was an implant‐supported overdenture rather than a single crown. Conclusions Implants with zirconia abutments may have an acceptable performance on peri‐implant health compared with all‐titanium implants; however, the implant survival rate of implants with zirconia abutments is slightly lower than all‐titanium implants in the long‐term follow‐up. Additional studies are needed to explain this dichotomy.

show abstract

“…Other studies have reported similar concerns regarding zirconia implant abutments . Clinically, however, zirconia abutments are capable of withstanding occlusal loads in the anterior region of the mouth …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fracture Resistance of Additively Manufactured Zirconia Crowns when Cemented to Implant Supported Zirconia Abutments: An in vitro Study

Zandinejad¹,

Methani

Schneiderman

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To compare the fracture resistance of implant‐supported milled zirconia, milled lithium disilicate, and additively manufactured zirconia crowns. Materials and Methods Maxillary cast with a dental implant replacing right second bicuspid was obtained. Custom abutments and full‐contour crowns for milled zirconia, milled lithium disilicate, and additively manufactured zirconia crowns (n = 10/group) were digitally designed and fabricated. The crowns were cemented to implant‐supported zirconia abutments and mounted onto polyurethane blocks. Fracture resistance was determined by vertical force application using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 2 mm/minute. Kruskal‐Wallis test was used to analyze data and failure mode was determined for all the groups. Results Milled zirconia crowns demonstrated the highest median fracture resistance (1292 ± 189 N), followed by milled lithium disilicate (1289 ± 142 N) and additively manufactured zirconia (1243.5 ± 265.5 N) crowns. Statistical analysis showed no significant differences in fracture resistance between the groups (p = 0.4). All specimens fractured at the implant‐abutment interface. Conclusion Additively manufactured zirconia crowns demonstrated similar fracture resistance to milled ceramic crowns, when cemented to implant supported zirconia abutments. The results of this in vitro study signify the promising potential of additive manufacturing for the fabrication of all ceramic zirconia crowns.

show abstract

Clinical Evaluation of the Influence of Connection Type and Restoration Height on the Reliability of Zirconia Abutments: A Retrospective Study on 965 Abutments with a Mean 6-Year Follow-Up

Cited by 31 publications

References 0 publications

Cemented vs screw‐retained zirconia‐based single implant reconstructions: A 3‐year prospective randomized controlled clinical trial

Cemented vs screw‐retained zirconia‐based single implant reconstructions: A 3‐year prospective randomized controlled clinical trial

Long‐Term Survival and Peri‐Implant Health of Titanium Implants with Zirconia Abutments: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Fracture Resistance of Additively Manufactured Zirconia Crowns when Cemented to Implant Supported Zirconia Abutments: An in vitro Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About