Fracture Resistance of Monolithic Glass‐Ceramics Versus Bilayered Zirconia‐Based Restorations

Hamza, Tamer; Sherif, Rana

doi:10.1111/jopr.12684

Cited by 59 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(103 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A promising new alternative to the bi‐layer reconstructions are monolithic reconstructions, for example, out of zirconia (Hamza & Sherif, ). A pronounced increase in application of the monolithic zirconia implant‐supported reconstructions can already be noted.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of zirconia‐ceramic and metal‐ceramic single crowns

Pjetursson

Valente

Strasding

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

212

213

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:The aim of the present systematic review was to analyze the survival and com plication rates of zirconiabased and metalceramic implantsupported single crowns (SCs). Materials and Methods: An electronic MEDLINE search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective cohort and retrospective case series on implantsupported SCs with a mean followup time of at least 3 years. Patients had to have been clinically examined at the followup visit. Assessment of the identified studies and data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5year proportions. Results: The search provided 5,263 titles and 455 abstracts, fulltext analysis was performed for 240 articles, resulting in 35 included studies on implantsupported crowns. Metaanalysis revealed an estimated 5year survival rate of 98.3% (95% CI: 96.8-99.1) for metalceramic implant supported SCs (n = 4,363) compared to 97.6% (95% CI: 94.3-99.0) for zirconia implant supported SCs (n = 912). About 86.7% (95% CI: 80.7-91.0) of the metalceramic SCs (n = 1,300) experienced no biological/ technical complications over the entire observation period. The corresponding rate for zirconia SCs (n = 76) was 83.8% (95% CI: 61.6-93.8). The biologic outcomes of the two types of crowns were similar; yet, zirconia SCs exhibited less aesthetic complications than metalceramics. The 5year incidence of chipping of the veneering ceramic was similar between the material groups (2.9% metalceramic, 2.8% zirconia ceramic). Significantly (p = 0.001), more zirconiaceramic implant SCs failed due to material fractures (2.1% vs. 0.2% metalceramic implant SCs). No studies on newer types of monolithic zirconia SCs fulfilled the simple inclusion criteria of 3 years followup time and clinical examination of the present systematic review. Conclusion: Zirconiaceramic implantsupported SCs are a valid treatment alternative to metalceramic SCs, with similar incidence of biological complications and less aesthetic problems. The amount of ceramic chipping was similar between the materialgroups; yet, significantly more zirconia crowns failed due to material fractures. K E Y W O R D Sbiological, complications, fixed dental prostheses, implant crown, metaanalysis, metal ceramics, success, survival, systematic review, technical, zirconia frameworkThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of zirconia‐ceramic and metal‐ceramic single crowns

Pjetursson

Valente

Strasding

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

212

213

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Alternatives such as monolithic restorations (Hamza & Sherif, 2017;Joda, Burki, Bethge, Bragger, & Zysset, 2015) and hybrid structures (Ferrari et al, 2014;Grohmann, Bindl, Hammerle, Mehl, & Sailer, 2015;Kanat et al, 2014) have also been proposed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological effect of the abutment material on the stability of peri‐implant marginal bone levels: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Sanz‐Sánchez

Sanz‐Martín

Albornoz

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…14 A physiologic range of occlusal forces load was applied on the tested samples based on range and limits reported in previous studies. 13 Subjecting the samples to thermal and mechanical loading to mimic active oral environmental condition as part of the present study design, representing the expected clinical in vivo changes, which might result in the undesired phenomenon of low temperature degradation (LTD). 15 Survival of all FPDs samples of both groups after artificial aging in the chewing simulator, indicates the stable performance of the zirconia ceramics under mechanical and thermal stress like in the oral environment, as previously reported.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Flexural strength of two types of monolithic zirconium oxide long-span fixed partial dentures

Shakal¹,

Oraby²

2018

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the flexural strength of two types of monolithic zirconium oxide long-span fixed partial dentures (FPDs). The monolithic materials used in the study were (InCoris TZI C and Bruxzir shaded 16). Readily prepared ivory teeth were used to simulate a 4-unit FPD with 22 mm span length. A total number of 40 FPDs 4 units FBDs were distributed into two main groups based on the construction material type, each counting 20 FPDs. Twenty FPDs were fabricated using InCoris TZI C (group 1) and the other twenty FBDs were fabricated using Bruxzir shaded 16 (group 2). FPDs were manufactured according to CAD/CAM technique. All specimens were stored in water for 24 hours and then subjected to 10,000 thermal cycles then mechanically loaded for 10.000 preloading cycles at loads between minimum 10 N and maximum 89N at 1HZ frequency. and then loaded until failure in a universal testing machine. The 3-point bending test was done to evaluate the flexural strength of the FPDs using Instron testing machine. Results. Bruxzir shaded 16 has recorded the highest mean of values at a level of (928.55 Mpa± 66.13), while those recorded for InCoris TZI C group of specimens were at the level of (845.21 Mpa±83.54). T-test revealed a highly statistical significant difference between both tested monolithic zirconia materials at the value level of P<0.001.

show abstract

Fracture Resistance of Monolithic Glass‐Ceramics Versus Bilayered Zirconia‐Based Restorations

Abstract: The use of monolithic reinforced ceramic restorations (lithium disilicate and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate) is preferred to bilayered zirconia-based restorations to avoid chipping of the ceramic veneer.

Cited by 59 publications

References 38 publications

A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of zirconia‐ceramic and metal‐ceramic single crowns

A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of zirconia‐ceramic and metal‐ceramic single crowns

Biological effect of the abutment material on the stability of peri‐implant marginal bone levels: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Comparative Flexural strength of two types of monolithic zirconium oxide long-span fixed partial dentures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About