Heller Hadas, Sreter David, Arieli Adi, Beitlitum Ilan, Pilo Raphael, Levartovsky Shifra
Department of Oral Rehabilitation, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel.
Department of Periodontology and Dental Implantology, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel.
Materials (Basel). 2022 Jan 22;15(3):833. doi: 10.3390/ma15030833.
The aim of this study was to assess retrospectively the survival and success rates of monolithic zirconia restorations supported by teeth and implants in bruxer versus non-bruxer patients. Methods: A total of 15 bruxer and 25 non-bruxer patients attended the recall appointment. The bruxer group (mean age of 61.2 ± 13.3 years and follow-up of 58.7 ± 16.8 months) were treated with 331 monolithic zirconia restorations, while the non-bruxer group, with a comparable mean age and follow-up time, were treated with 306 monolithic zirconia restorations. Clinical data were retrieved from the patients' files. At the recall appointment, all supporting teeth and implants were examined for biological and technical complications, and the restorations were evaluated using modified California Dental Association (CDA) criteria. Data were statistically analyzed using survival analysis methods. A significance level of < 0.05 was used. A total of 31 versus 27 biologic and technical complications were recorded in the bruxer and non-bruxer groups, respectively. No significant differences were found between the two groups regarding overall complications and survival rate. Regarding the type of complication, a significantly higher rate of veneered porcelain chipping ( = 0.045) was observed in the bruxer group. With regard to biological complications, the only complications that exhibited a borderline, although not significant, difference were three fractured teeth exclusively in the bruxer group ( = 0.051), which were replaced with implant-supported restorations. Within the limitations of this study, we conclude that there were no significant differences in the overall survival and success rates of the monolithic zirconia restorations in bruxer versus non-bruxer patients, although veneered zirconia restorations and single tooth abutments exhibited a higher rate of complications in the bruxer group.
本研究的目的是回顾性评估磨牙症患者与非磨牙症患者中，由牙齿和种植体支持的整体式氧化锆修复体的生存率和成功率。方法：共有15名磨牙症患者和25名非磨牙症患者前来复诊。磨牙症组（平均年龄61.2±13.3岁，随访时间58.7±16.8个月）接受了331个整体式氧化锆修复体治疗，而非磨牙症组，平均年龄和随访时间与之相当，接受了306个整体式氧化锆修复体治疗。临床数据从患者病历中获取。在复诊时，对所有支持牙齿和种植体进行生物学和技术并发症检查，并使用改良的加利福尼亚牙科协会（CDA）标准对修复体进行评估。采用生存分析方法对数据进行统计学分析。使用的显著性水平<0.05。磨牙症组和非磨牙症组分别记录了31例和27例生物学和技术并发症。两组在总体并发症和生存率方面未发现显著差异。关于并发症类型，磨牙症组观察到烤瓷贴面崩瓷率显著更高（P = 0.045）。关于生物学并发症，唯一表现出临界差异（虽不显著）的是仅在磨牙症组出现的3颗牙齿折断（P = 0.051），这些牙齿被种植体支持的修复体替代。在本研究的局限性范围内，我们得出结论，磨牙症患者与非磨牙症患者中整体式氧化锆修复体的总体生存率和成功率没有显著差异，尽管磨牙症组中烤瓷贴面氧化锆修复体和单颗牙齿基牙的并发症发生率较高。
Zotero 插件
