Moráguez Osvaldo D, Wiskott H W Anselm, Scherrer Susanne S
Division of Fixed Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, School of Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Rue Barthélemy-Menn 19, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland.
Clin Oral Investig. 2015 Dec;19(9):2295-307. doi: 10.1007/s00784-015-1455-y. Epub 2015 May 20.
The aims of this study were set as follows: 1. To provide verifiable criteria to categorize the ceramic fractures into non-critical (i.e., amenable to polishing) or critical (i.e., in need of replacement) 2. To establish the corresponding survival rates for alumina and zirconia restorations 3. To establish the mechanism of fracture using fractography
Fifty-eight patients restored with 115 alumina-/zirconia-based crowns and 26 zirconia-based fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) were included. Ceramic fractures were classified into four types and further subclassified into "critical" or "non-critical." Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were calculated for "critical fractures only" and "all fractures." Intra-oral replicas were taken for fractographic analyses.
Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for "critical fractures only" and "all fractures" were respectively: Alumina single crowns: 90.9 and 68.3 % after 9.5 years (mean 5.71 ± 2.6 years). Zirconia single crowns: 89.4 and 80.9 % after 6.3 years (mean 3.88 ± 1.2 years). Zirconia FDPs: 68.6 % (critical fractures) and 24.6 % (all fractures) after 7.2 and 4.6 years respectively (FDP mean observation time 3.02 ± 1.4 years). No core/framework fractures were detected.
Survival estimates varied significantly depending on whether "all" fractures were considered as failures or only those deemed as "critical". For all restorations, fractographic analyses of failed veneering ceramics systematically demonstrated heavy occlusal wear at the failure origin. Therefore, the relief of local contact pressures on unsupported ceramic is recommended. Occlusal contacts on mesial or distal ridges should systematically be eliminated.
A classification standard for ceramic fractures into four categories with subtypes "critical" and "non-critical" provides a differentiated view of the survival of ceramic restorations.
本研究的目标设定如下:1. 提供可验证的标准,将陶瓷修复体骨折分为非关键型(即可打磨修复)或关键型(即需要更换);2. 确定氧化铝和氧化锆修复体的相应生存率;3. 利用断口分析确定骨折机制。
纳入58例患者,其共使用了115个氧化铝/氧化锆基牙冠和26个氧化锆基固定义齿(FDP)。陶瓷骨折分为四种类型,并进一步细分为“关键型”或“非关键型”。计算“仅关键骨折”和“所有骨折”的Kaplan-Meier生存率估计值。取口内复制件进行断口分析。
“仅关键骨折”和“所有骨折”的Kaplan-Meier生存率估计值分别为:氧化铝单冠:9.5年后为90.9%和68.3%(平均5.71±2.6年)。氧化锆单冠:6.3年后为89.4%和80.9%(平均3.88±1.2年)。氧化锆FDP:7.2年后关键骨折为68.6%,4.6年后所有骨折为24.6%(FDP平均观察时间3.02±1.4年)。未检测到核/支架骨折。
生存率估计值因将“所有”骨折视为失败还是仅将那些被视为“关键”的骨折视为失败而有显著差异。对于所有修复体,对失败的贴面陶瓷进行断口分析系统地显示,在失败起源处存在严重的咬合磨损。因此,建议减轻无支撑陶瓷上的局部接触压力。应系统地消除近中或远中嵴上的咬合接触。
将陶瓷骨折分为四类并细分为“关键型”和“非关键型”的分类标准,为陶瓷修复体的生存率提供了不同的视角。