Full‐Arch, Implant‐Supported Monolithic Zirconia Rehabilitations: Pilot Clinical Evaluation of Wear Against Natural or Composite Teeth

Cardelli, Paolo; Manobianco, Francesco Pio; Serafini, Nicola; Murmura, Giovanna; Beuer, Florian

doi:10.1111/jopr.12374

Cited by 27 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(52 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This might be because only one patient, with a full‐arch zirconia restoration, was examined by Cardelli et al . ; this situation is not comparable with the single crowns used in our study, particularly with regard to wear behaviour.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 88%

“…Cardelli et al . reported mean enamel wear of 76 μm caused by a full‐arch implant‐supported monolithic zirconia restoration after 1 year. This wear was noticeably higher than that in our study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cardelli et al . studied enamel wear caused by a full‐arch implant‐supported monolithic zirconia restoration in one patient only. We have already reported the clinical wear behaviour of monolithic zirconia crowns after 6 months of observation .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Clinical assessment of enamel wear caused by monolithic zirconia crowns

Stober

Schwindling

Schmitter

2016

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to measure enamel wear caused by antagonistic monolithic zirconia crowns and to compare this with enamel wear caused by contralateral natural antagonists. Twenty monolithic zirconia full molar crowns were placed in 20 patients. Patients with high activity of the masseter muscle at night (bruxism) were excluded. For analysis of wear, vinylpolysiloxane impressions were prepared after crown incorporation and at 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up. Wear of the occlusal contact areas of the crowns, of their natural antagonists, and of two contralateral natural antagonists (control teeth) was measured by use of plaster replicas and a 3D laser-scanning device. Differences of wear between the zirconia crown antagonists and the control teeth were investigated by means of two-sided paired Student's t-tests and linear regression analysis. After 2 years, mean vertical loss was 46 μm for enamel opposed to zirconia, 19-26 μm for contralateral control teeth and 14 μm for zirconia crowns. Maximum vertical loss was 151 μm for enamel opposed to zirconia, 75-115 μm for control teeth and 60 μm for zirconia crowns. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences between wear of enamel by zirconia-opposed teeth and by control teeth. Gender, which significantly affected wear, was identified as a possible confounder. Monolithic zirconia crowns generated more wear of opposed enamel than did natural teeth. Because of the greater wear caused by other dental ceramics, the use of monolithic zirconia crowns may be justified.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical assessment of enamel wear caused by monolithic zirconia crowns

Stober

Schwindling

Schmitter

2016

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A comparison of enamel wear against zirconia among the 1-year studies shows Munde at 84.5 μm, Cardelli [28] at 76 μm and the current study at 70.3 μm. These values are all comparable with each other.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 47%

“…However, in vitro studies are hard to compare with each other because of differences in surface finish of material, type of material, method of wear and type of wear analysis used. The limited clinical studies which have been published describe how monolithic zirconia is a viable restorative material in that the wear of antagonist enamel is within the range of acceptable limits [25–28]. However, since there is a limited number of clinical studies available, there is need for more clinical analyses to further validate the wear compatibility of zirconia with enamel.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Randomized clinical study of wear of enamel antagonists against polished monolithic zirconia crowns

Esquivel‐Upshaw

Kim

Hsu

et al. 2018

Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To test the hypothesis that there is no difference in the in vivo maximum wear of enamel opposing monolithic zirconia crowns, enamel opposing porcelain fused to metal crowns and enamel opposing enamel. Methods Thirty patients needing single crowns were randomized to receive either a monolithic zirconia or metal-ceramic crown. Two non-restored opposing teeth in the same quadrants were identified to serve as enamel controls. After cementation, quadrants were scanned for baseline data. Polyvinylsiloxane impressions were obtained and poured in white stone. Patients were recalled at six-months and one-year for re-impression. Stone models were scanned using a tabletop laserscanner to determine maximum wear. Statistical analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney U to determine any significant differences between the wear of enamel against zirconia and metal-ceramic crowns. Results Sixteen zirconia and 14 metal-ceramic crowns were delivered. There were no statistical differences in mean wear of crown types (p = 0.165); enamel antagonists (p = 0.235) and enamel controls (p = 0.843) after one year. Conclusion Monolithic zirconia exhibited comparable wear of enamel compared with metal-ceramic crowns and control enamel after one year. Significance This study is clinically significant because the use of polished monolithic zirconia demonstrated comparable wear of opposing enamel to metal-ceramic and enamel antagonists.

show abstract

Full Arch Cases

2021

The ADA Practical Guide to Dental Implants

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Full‐Arch, Implant‐Supported Monolithic Zirconia Rehabilitations: Pilot Clinical Evaluation of Wear Against Natural or Composite Teeth

Abstract: Within the limitations of this preliminary evaluation, monolithic zirconia full-arch rehabilitations induced a clinically acceptable wear on natural and composite antagonists over a 1-year period; they might be considered a viable solution for implant-supported rehabilitations.

Cited by 27 publications

References 26 publications

Clinical assessment of enamel wear caused by monolithic zirconia crowns

Clinical assessment of enamel wear caused by monolithic zirconia crowns

Randomized clinical study of wear of enamel antagonists against polished monolithic zirconia crowns

Full Arch Cases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About