Clinical Advantages and Limitations of Monolithic Zirconia Restorations Full Arch Implant Supported Reconstruction: Case Series

Joao Carames, Loana Tovar Suinaga, Yung Cheng Paul Yu, Alejandro Pérez, Mary Kang, Joao Carames, Loana Tovar Suinaga, Yung Cheng Paul Yu, Alejandro Pérez, Mary Kang

Abstract

Purpose. The purpose of this retrospective case series is to evaluate the clinical advantages and limitations of monolithic zirconia restorations for full arch implant supported restorations and report the rate of complications up to 2 years after insertion. Materials and Methods. Fourteen patients received implant placement for monolithic zirconia full arch reconstructions. Four implants were placed in seven arches, eleven arches received six implants, two arches received seven implants, two arches received eight implants, and one arch received nine implants. Results. No implant failures or complications were reported for an implant survival rate of 100% with follow-up ranging from 3 to 24 months. Conclusions. Monolithic zirconia CAD-/CAM-milled framework restorations are a treatment option for full arch restorations over implants, showing a 96% success rate in the present study. Some of the benefits are accuracy, reduced veneering porcelain, and minimal occlusal adjustments. The outcome of the present study showed high success in function, aesthetics, phonetics, and high patient satisfaction.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Maxillary occlusal view after tissue healing.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Intraoral frontal view of artificial teeth arrangement.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Smile view with artificial teeth arrangement.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Digital preview of the maxillary monolithic prosthesis.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Intraoral frontal view with the epoxy resin prototype.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Maxillary monolithic prosthesis with teeth characterization.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Ceramic application for gingiva colors and teeth ceramic.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Prostheses after final sintering.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Translucency effect in the anterior maxilla after application of ceramics in the digital cut back.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Intraoral lateral view of the final prostheses.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Intraoral frontal view of the final prostheses.
Figure 12
Figure 12
Smile view of the final prostheses.

References

    1. Rojas-Vizcaya F. Full zirconia fixed detachable implant-retained restorations manufactured from monolithic zirconia: clinical report after two years in service. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2011;20(7):570–576. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00784.x.
    1. Larsson C., von Steyern P. V. Implant-supported full-arch zirconia-based mandibular fixed dental prostheses. Eight-year results from a clinical pilot study. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. 2013;71(5):1118–1122. doi: 10.3109/00016357.2012.749518.
    1. Guess P. C., Att W., Strub J. R. Zirconia in fixed implant prosthodontics. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. 2012;14(5):633–645. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00317.x.
    1. Kanat B., Çömlekoğlu E. M., Dündar-Çömlekoğlu M., Hakan Sen B., Özcan M., Ali Güngör M. Effect of various veneering techniques on mechanical strength of computer-controlled zirconia framework designs. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2014;23(6):445–455. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12130.
    1. Sadid-Zadeh R., Liu P. R., Aponte-Wesson R., O'Neal S. J. Maxillary cement retained implant supported monolithic zirconia prosthesis in a full mouth rehabilitation: a clinical report. Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics. 2013;5(2):209–217. doi: 10.4047/jap.2013.5.2.209.
    1. Zaghloul H. H., Younis J. F. Marginal fit of implant-supported all-ceramic zirconia frameworks. Journal of Oral Implantology. 2013;39(4):417–424. doi: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-11-00103.
    1. Limmer B., Sanders A. E., Reside G., Cooper L. F. Complications and patient-centered outcomes with an implant-supported monolithic zirconia fixed dental prosthesis: 1 year results. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2014;23(4):267–275. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12110.
    1. Oliva J., Oliva X., Oliva J. D. All-on-three delayed implant loading concept for the completely edentulous maxilla and mandible: a retrospective 5-year follow-up study. The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2012;27(6):1584–1592.
    1. Papaspyridakos P., Lal K. Immediate loading of the maxilla with prefabricated interim prosthesis using interactive planning software, and CAD/CAM rehabilitation with definitive zirconia prosthesis: 2-year clinical follow-up. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. 2010;22(4):223–234. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2010.00343.x.
    1. Pozzi A., Holst S., Fabbri G., Tallarico M. Clinical reliability of CAD/CAM cross-arch zirconia bridges on immediately loaded implants placed with computer-assisted/template-guided surgery: a retrospective study with a follow-up between 3 and 5 years. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. 2013 doi: 10.1111/cid.12132.
    1. Larsson C., Vult von Steyern P., Nilner K. A prospective study of implant-supported full-arch yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal mandibular fixed dental prostheses: three-year results. The International Journal of Prosthodontics. 2010;23(4):364–369.
    1. Papaspyridakos P., Lal K. Complete arch implant rehabilitation using subtractive rapid prototyping and porcelain fused to zirconia prosthesis: a clinical report. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2008;100(3):165–172. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)00110-8.
    1. Lazetera A. Extreme class II full arch zirconia implant bridge. Australasian Dental Practice. 2009;7:170–174.
    1. Heintze S. D., Rousson V. Survival of zirconia- and metal-supported fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review. The International Journal of Prosthodontics. 2010;23(6):493–502.
    1. Bergendal B., Palmqvist S. Laser-welded titanium frameworks for implant-supported fixed prostheses: a 5-year report. The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 1999;14(1):69–71.
    1. Ortorp A., Jemt T. Clinical experiences of CNC-milled titanium frameworks supported by implants in the edentulous jaw: 1-year prospective study. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. 2000;2(1):2–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2000.tb00101.x.
    1. Wang F., Takahashi H., Iwasaki N. Translucency of dental ceramics with different thicknesses. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2013;110(1):14–20. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60333-9.
    1. Sherif S., Susarla H. K., Kapos T., Munoz D., Chang B. M., Wright R. F. A systematic review of screw-versus cement-retained implant-supported fixed restorations. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2014;23(1):1–9. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12128.
    1. Nissan J., Narobai D., Gross O., Ghelfan O., Chaushu G. Long-term outcome of cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported partial restorations. The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2011;26(5):1102–1107.
    1. Sailer I., Mühlemann S., Zwahlen M., Hämmerle C. H. F., Schneider D. Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2012;23(6):163–201. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02538.x.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere