Retrospective analysis of 26 complete-arch implant-supported monolithic zirconia prostheses with feldspathic porcelain veneering limited to the facial surface

Venezia, Pietro; Torsello, Ferruccio; Cavalcanti, Raffaele; D'Amato, Salvatore

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.02.010

Cited by 60 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Venezia et al, Only one investigation included few monolithic zirconia reconstructions without any veneering (Venezia et al, 2015). FA-FDPs were supported by 3-10 implants.…”

Section: Hand-layeredmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical outcomes of partial and full‐arch all‐ceramic implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses. A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Pieralli

Kohal

Rabel

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To assess the survival and technical complication rate of partial and fullarch all-ceramic implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (P-FDP/FA-FDP) and supporting implants. Materials and methods:An electronic search through three databases (MEDLINE/ Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase) was conducted to identify relevant clinical studies with an observation period of at least 12 months, including ≥15 patients.Reconstruction and implant survival rates, technical complications and confounding variables such as processed/installed materials, retention mode and location in the mouth were obtained. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using standard Poisson regression models to calculate 5-year survival and complication estimates. Results:A total of five studies for the P-FDP group and seven studies for the FA-FDP group were included, throughout evaluating veneered zirconia reconstructions. In the P-FDP group, reconstructions were located in posterior regions. Meta-analysis indicated survival estimates on the reconstruction level of 98.3% and 97.7% for Pand FA-FDPs after 5 years. However, chipping of the veneering ceramic was frequent, resulting in estimated 5-year complication rates of 22.8% (P-FDPs) and 34.8% (FA-FDPs). Five-year survival estimates of implants supporting P-FDPs and FA-FDPs of 98.5% and 99.4% were calculated, respectively. Including a total of 540 FDPs, one screw-loosening and 11 de-cementations were reported. Confounding variables were not found to have a significant influence on survival and complication rates.Conclusions: All-ceramic implant-supported P-and FA-FDPs comprising veneered zirconia frameworks showed high survival but clinically inacceptable fracture rates of the veneering ceramic. Their suitability with regard to this indication and a successful long-term outcome needs to be further evaluated.

show abstract

“…Venezia et al, Only one investigation included few monolithic zirconia reconstructions without any veneering (Venezia et al, 2015). FA-FDPs were supported by 3-10 implants.…”

Section: Hand-layeredmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical outcomes of partial and full‐arch all‐ceramic implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses. A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Pieralli

Kohal

Rabel

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In recent years, the monolithic zirconia (fully anatomic zirconia or translucent zirconia) has been developed for tooth- and implant- supported all ceramic restorations in order to overcome these complications 78910. It requires less preparation9 because the needed material thickness for restoration is less than other all-ceramic materials that allow full anatomical restoration 11.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Modification of the crown design, covering zirconia crowns with porcelain (~ 1.0 mm) only on the buccal side and slightly extending to the occlusal surface, can minimize the occurrence of failures, increasing the survivability of restoration when it is under fatigue 15. Venezia et al10 reported minor chippings on the incisal margins in 3 out of 11 monolithic zirconia prostheses, which were digitally cut back in the anterior area.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shear bond strength of indirect composite material to monolithic zirconia

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSEThis study aimed to evaluate the effect of surface treatments on bond strength of indirect composite material (Tescera Indirect Composite System) to monolithic zirconia (inCoris TZI).MATERIALS AND METHODSPartially stabilized monolithic zirconia blocks were cut into with 2.0 mm thickness. Sintered zirconia specimens were divided into different surface treatment groups: no treatment (control), sandblasting, glaze layer & hydrofluoric acid application, and sandblasting + glaze layer & hydrofluoric acid application. The indirect composite material was applied to the surface of the monolithic zirconia specimens. Shear bond strength value of each specimen was evaluated after thermocycling. The fractured surface of each specimen was examined with a stereomicroscope and a scanning electron microscope to assess the failure types. The data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey LSD tests (α=.05).RESULTSBond strength was significantly lower in untreated specimens than in sandblasted specimens (P<.05). No difference between the glaze layer and hydrofluoric acid application treated groups were observed. However, bond strength for these groups were significantly higher as compared with the other two groups (P<.05).CONCLUSIONCombined use of glaze layer & hydrofluoric acid application and silanization are reliable for strong and durable bonding between indirect composite material and monolithic zirconia.

show abstract

“…Most of the technical complications were fractures of the opposing denture teeth. A retrospective analysis of 26 full‐arch implant‐supported zirconia prostheses with modified monolithic design observed that only three porcelain veneered teeth had minor cohesive porcelain fracture, with a prosthesis success rate of 94.8% . Regarding dual‐arch implant rehabilitation with monolithic zirconia, few clinical reports with 6‐, 12‐, and 24‐month follow‐up periods reported good outcomes .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial to Compare Posterior Implant‐Supported Modified Monolithic Zirconia and Metal‐Ceramic Single Crowns: One‐Year Results

Cheng

Chien

Chen

et al. 2018

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Retrospective analysis of 26 complete-arch implant-supported monolithic zirconia prostheses with feldspathic porcelain veneering limited to the facial surface

Cited by 60 publications

References 33 publications

Clinical outcomes of partial and full‐arch all‐ceramic implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses. A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Clinical outcomes of partial and full‐arch all‐ceramic implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses. A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Shear bond strength of indirect composite material to monolithic zirconia

Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial to Compare Posterior Implant‐Supported Modified Monolithic Zirconia and Metal‐Ceramic Single Crowns: One‐Year Results

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About