Oral Surgery Resident, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart Medical School, Rome, Italy.
Oral Surgery Resident, Department of Oral Surgery, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart Medical School, Rome, Italy.
J Prosthet Dent. 2020 Feb;123(2):252-256. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.11.016. Epub 2019 Jun 12.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Dentistry has evolved significantly with the introduction of digital technologies and materials; however, clinical evidence for the performance of the complete digital workflow for single implant-supported posterior crowns is lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this cross-sectional retrospective clinical study was to compare the clinical outcomes of 2 types of implant-supported crown used to replace a single missing posterior tooth in a completely digital workflow: transocclusal screw-retained monolithic lithium disilicate crowns versus transocclusal screw-retained monolithic zirconia crowns. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 38 participants who had been provided with dental implants and transocclusal screw-retained monolithic lithium disilicate or zirconia single crowns were evaluated in the study. Clinical and esthetic outcomes were recorded after a 3-year follow-up. RESULTS: Both groups had comparable clinical outcomes with a survival rate of 100%. In the lithium disilicate group, 89% of the participants were free of technical complications, and 95%, in the zirconia group. Only 1 patient experienced minor chipping affecting a lithium disilicate crown. All complications were considered minor and were easily resolved, and none of the participants required replacement of a crown. No biological complications were recorded in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this cross-sectional retrospective clinical study, monolithic lithium disilicate and zirconia screw-retained single crowns fabricated using computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) and a fully digital workflow were found to be reliable and suitable clinical options for restoring a posterior missing tooth on a dental implant.
问题陈述:随着数字技术和材料的引入,牙科领域已经发生了重大变化;然而,对于单个种植体支持的后牙冠的完整数字化工作流程的性能,临床证据仍然缺乏。
目的:本横断面回顾性临床研究的目的是比较两种用于替代单个缺失后牙的种植体支持冠的临床结果:用于完全数字化工作流程的牙合间螺丝固位整体式二硅酸锂玻璃陶瓷冠与牙合间螺丝固位整体式氧化锆冠。
材料和方法:共有 38 名参与者接受了种植体和牙合间螺丝固位整体式二硅酸锂玻璃陶瓷或氧化锆单冠修复,在研究中进行了评估。经过 3 年的随访,记录了临床和美学结果。
结果:两组的临床结果具有可比性,存活率均为 100%。在二硅酸锂玻璃陶瓷组中,89%的参与者没有技术并发症,而在氧化锆组中,这一比例为 95%。只有 1 名患者的玻璃陶瓷冠出现轻微碎裂。所有并发症均被认为是轻微的,且易于解决,没有参与者需要更换牙冠。两组均未记录到任何生物学并发症。
结论:在本横断面回顾性临床研究的限制范围内,使用计算机辅助设计和计算机辅助制造(CAD-CAM)以及完全数字化工作流程制作的整体式二硅酸锂玻璃陶瓷和氧化锆螺丝固位单冠被认为是可靠且适合用于修复种植体上缺失后牙的临床选择。
Clin Oral Investig. 2017-7-15
J Prosthet Dent. 2014-10
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017-1-16
Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2025-3-26
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2025-2