Gonzalez-Bonilla M, Berrendero S, Moron-Conejo B, Martinez-Rus F, Salido M P
Carrer 9 d'Octubre, 1, Altea, 03590, Alicante, Spain.
Department of Conservative and Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, Plaza Ramón y Cajal, s/n. Madrid, 28040, Spain.
J Dent. 2024 Sep;148:104953. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.104953. Epub 2024 Mar 28.
To evaluate the clinical conditions of single-unit posterior restorations on teeth prepared without finishing line, after 5.6 years of clinical service.
50 crowns (25 zirconia-based (Zr) and 25 porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM)) were selected from 34 patients. The restorations were evaluated according to the California Dental Association (CDA) Quality Criteria, and periodontal variables were studied in the abutment teeth compared with the unrestored contralateral teeth. Variables were examined using Mann-Whitney and Pearson´s Chi-Square tests (α = 0.05). The success of the prosthesis was calculated using Kaplan-Meier test.
CDA Quality Criteria was considered satisfactory-excellent in all restorations except for one of them, due to chipping on a PFM crown. At, 66 months, the success rates for PFM and Zr crowns were 85.7 % and 100 %, respectively. The plaque index (PI) showed that the restored abutment teeth accumulated significantly less plaque than the control teeth, but the gingival index (GI) was statistically higher in the abutment teeth. In 80 % of cases the probing depth (PB) was ≤3 mm. In addition, in 21 % of the cases, gingival recession was less than 2 mm. The restoration material had a statistically significant effect on GI and PB, with Zr crowns showing less inflammation and less deep pockets than PFM restorations. On the contrary, greater gingival recession was found at the margins of the Zr crowns when compared to the PFM. No statistical differences were found between the two materials in the GI.
Cemented crowns on vertical preparations show good clinical behavior after 5 years. The periodontal parameters (PI, GI, PD) of the Zr restorations are significantly better than those of PFM, with the exception of gingival recession.
The use of restorations on vertically prepared teeth is a suitable alternative to classical horizontal preparations.
评估在无肩台预备的牙齿上进行单单位后牙修复体5.6年临床使用后的临床状况。
从34例患者中选取50个全冠(25个氧化锆基(Zr)全冠和25个烤瓷熔附金属(PFM)全冠)。根据加利福尼亚牙科协会(CDA)质量标准对修复体进行评估,并与未修复的对侧牙齿相比,研究基牙的牙周变量。使用曼-惠特尼检验和皮尔逊卡方检验(α = 0.05)检查变量。使用卡普兰-迈耶检验计算修复体的成功率。
除一个PFM全冠出现崩瓷外,所有修复体的CDA质量标准均被认为满意-优秀。在66个月时,PFM全冠和Zr全冠的成功率分别为85.7%和100%。菌斑指数(PI)显示,修复后的基牙比对照牙积累的菌斑明显更少,但基牙的牙龈指数(GI)在统计学上更高。在80%的病例中,探诊深度(PB)≤3mm。此外,在21%的病例中,牙龈退缩小于2mm。修复材料对GI和PB有统计学显著影响,Zr全冠比PFM修复体显示出更少的炎症和更浅的牙周袋。相反,与PFM相比,Zr全冠边缘处的牙龈退缩更明显。两种材料在GI方面未发现统计学差异。
垂直预备的粘结全冠在5年后显示出良好的临床性能。Zr修复体的牙周参数(PI、GI、PD)明显优于PFM,牙龈退缩除外。
在垂直预备的牙齿上使用修复体是传统水平预备的合适替代方法。