Abstract
Objectives
To evaluate the performance of two types of zirconia frameworks.
Material and Methods
From 2014 to 2016, in a prospective clinical trial 150 patients were rehabilitated with 83 and 110 implant‐supported, screw‐retained, full‐arch ceramic‐veneered zirconia (PVZ) rehabilitations and monolithic zirconia with porcelain veneering limited to buccal (MZ) rehabilitations, respectively. Patients were consecutively enlisted according to pre‐defined inclusion criteria and evaluated on 4 months intervals. A Kaplan Meier estimator was adopted, and the log‐rank test and Wilcoxon test used to test differences in survival and successful function in the two different groups.
Results
The average follow up time (+/‐ SD) and implant success rate was 608.80 ± 172.52 days with 99.53% implant success for the PVZ group and 552.63 ± 197.57 days with 99.83% success for the MZ group. According to the Kaplan Meier estimator, the mean cumulative survival rate at the 2 year follow up for framework fracture, major chipping, minor chipping, or any of the former combined to occur was 0.99, 0.95, 0.93 and 0.85 for the PVZ group (n=18) and 0.99, 0.95, 0.95 and 0.89 for the MZ group (n=15). No significant differences were found between the two groups.
Conclusions
Results suggest zirconia as a suitable material for frameworks in full‐arch implant‐supported rehabilitations. Both groups presented a low incidence of technical complications. When comparing the two different designs the MZ group presented a lower technical complication rate, thus presenting itself as a viable alternative for full arch implant‐supported rehabilitations. Further clinical studies with longer follow‐ups (5 years) should be performed to evaluate the long‐term stability of such rehabilitations.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
https://ift.tt/2QinHXo
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου
Σημείωση: Μόνο ένα μέλος αυτού του ιστολογίου μπορεί να αναρτήσει σχόλιο.