Department of Buccofacial Prostheses, University Complutense, Madrid, Spain.
Int J Prosthodont. 2012 Sep-Oct;25(5):451-8.
The aim of this study was to compare the survival rates and biologic and technical complications of three-unit metal-ceramic posterior fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) with those obtained with zirconia frameworks.
Thirty-seven patients in need of 40 three-unit posterior FDPs were included in this study. The FDPs were randomly assigned to 20 zirconia and 20 metal-ceramic restorations. Abutment preparation guidelines consisted of a 1-mm-wide circumferential chamfer, axial reduction of 1 mm, and occlusal reduction of 1.5 to 2 mm. At baseline and 1, 2, 3, and 4 years after cementation, success of both types of restorations was evaluated. The restorations were assessed using the California Dental Association's assessment system. Periodontal parameters were assessed by determining the Plaque Index (PI), Gingival Index (GI), Marginal Index (MI), and pocket depth of the abutment and control teeth. Statistical analysis was performed by applying Wilcoxon rank sum and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.
Patients were examined after a mean observation period of 50 ± 2.4 months. The survival rates for metal-ceramic and zirconia restorations were 100% and 95%, respectively. One biologic complication in a zirconia FDP was observed at the 3-year follow-up. No fractures of the zirconia or metal frameworks were observed. Restorations from both groups were assessed as satisfactory. Minor chipping of the veneering ceramic was observed in 2 zirconia FDPs after 4 years. No significant differences were observed between abutment and contralateral teeth for either type of restoration or within the groups with regard to PI, GI, and pocket depth.
Zirconia-based FDPs demonstrated a similar survival rate to metal-ceramic FDPs after medium-term clinical use.
本研究旨在比较三单位金属陶瓷后固定义齿(FDP)和氧化锆基 FDP 的生存率以及生物学和技术并发症。
本研究纳入了 37 名需要 40 个三单位后 FDP 的患者。将 FDP 随机分配到 20 个氧化锆组和 20 个金属陶瓷组。基牙预备指南包括 1mm 宽的环形倒角、1mm 的轴向减径和 1.5 至 2mm 的牙合面减径。在粘固后 1、2、3 和 4 年,评估两种类型修复体的成功率。使用加利福尼亚牙科协会的评估系统评估修复体。通过确定菌斑指数(PI)、牙龈指数(GI)、边缘指数(MI)和基牙和对照牙的牙周袋深度来评估牙周参数。采用 Wilcoxon 秩和检验和 Wilcoxon 符号秩检验进行统计分析。
患者平均观察 50±2.4 个月后接受检查。金属陶瓷和氧化锆修复体的生存率分别为 100%和 95%。在 3 年随访时观察到一个氧化锆 FDP 的生物学并发症。未观察到氧化锆或金属框架的骨折。两组的修复体均被评估为满意。4 年后,两个氧化锆 FDP 观察到轻微的饰瓷崩裂。对于任何类型的修复体或在两组内,基牙和对侧牙的 PI、GI 和牙周袋深度均无显著差异。
在中期临床应用后,氧化锆基 FDP 的生存率与金属陶瓷 FDP 相似。