Survival and Success Rates of Monolithic Zirconia Restorations Supported by Teeth and Implants in Bruxer versus Non-Bruxer Patients: A Retrospective Study

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess retrospectively the survival and success rates of monolithic zirconia restorations supported by teeth and implants in bruxer versus non-bruxer patients. Methods: A total of 15 bruxer and 25 non-bruxer patients attended the recall appointment. The bruxer group (mean age of 61.2 ± 13.3 years and follow-up of 58.7 ± 16.8 months) were treated with 331 monolithic zirconia restorations, while the non-bruxer group, with a comparable mean age and follow-up time, were treated with 306 monolithic zirconia restorations. Clinical data were retrieved from the patients’ files. At the recall appointment, all supporting teeth and implants were examined for biological and technical complications, and the restorations were evaluated using modified California Dental Association (CDA) criteria. Data were statistically analyzed using survival analysis methods. A significance level of p < 0.05 was used. A total of 31 versus 27 biologic and technical complications were recorded in the bruxer and non-bruxer groups, respectively. No significant differences were found between the two groups regarding overall complications and survival rate. Regarding the type of complication, a significantly higher rate of veneered porcelain chipping (p = 0.045) was observed in the bruxer group. With regard to biological complications, the only complications that exhibited a borderline, although not significant, difference were three fractured teeth exclusively in the bruxer group (p = 0.051), which were replaced with implant-supported restorations. Within the limitations of this study, we conclude that there were no significant differences in the overall survival and success rates of the monolithic zirconia restorations in bruxer versus non-bruxer patients, although veneered zirconia restorations and single tooth abutments exhibited a higher rate of complications in the bruxer group.

Clinical Outcomes of Monolithic Zirconia Crowns on Posterior Natural Abutments Performed by Final Year Dental Medicine Students: A Prospective Study with a 5-Year Follow-Up

“…The authors compared these studies with their results of year-by-year survivals and CDA rating. In the current study, no complications occurred during the first year of evaluation, with a 100% survival rate, the latter is consistent with different authors [ 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 ]; however, in contrast, Miura, Gunge and Bankoğlu Güngör reported initial failures after the first year, with abutment root fracture being the most common biological complication [ 17 , 31 , 32 ]. The overall survival rate in the second year was similar to ours, while different from other studies reporting two root fractures and one root fracture of the antagonist tooth [ 26 , 31 , 33 ].…”

“…Overall, the survival rate of 95% we reported is similar to several authors in the third year of follow-up [ 24 , 26 , 27 , 33 ], consistent with the results of Solà Ruiz, Waldecker and Heller in the fifth year [ 25 , 28 , 36 ], and better than Miura, Gunge, Bankoğlu Güngör and Mikeli [ 17 , 29 , 31 , 32 ].…”

“…These consisted of FDP fracture between 45 and 46 and increased surface roughness. Similar results have been reported by Heller in his study, as three patients showed secondary caries after the fourth year, thus requiring crown removal, conservation treatment and crown replacement [ 28 ]. Among our cases, a similar complication occurred after five years.…”

Effect of restoration material on marginal bone resorption around modified anatomic zirconia dental implants: A randomised controlled trial

“…They reported a survival rate of 94.3% with all lost implants failed before definitive restoration [ 26 ]. Zirconia implants were also reported to be successful in patients with bruxism [ 27 ]. Success and survival of zirconia implants were not significantly affected when placed in bruxer group of patients [ 27 ].…”

“…Zirconia implants were also reported to be successful in patients with bruxism [ 27 ]. Success and survival of zirconia implants were not significantly affected when placed in bruxer group of patients [ 27 ]. However, all included participants of this study were non-bruxer.…”