LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 29 , Issue 5
September/October 2016

Pages 473–481


Functional and Esthetic Comparison of Metal-Ceramic and All-Ceramic Posterior Three-Unit Fixed Dental Prostheses

Maj H. Nicolaisen, DDM/Golnosh Bahrami, DDM, PhD/Lars Schropp, DDM, PhD/Flemming Isidor, DDM, PhD, Dr Odont


PMID: 27611751
DOI: 10.11607/ijp.4646

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess functional and esthetic satisfaction plus evaluate changes in oral health–related quality of life (OHRQoL) using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) after insertion of a metal-ceramic (MC-FDP) or a veneered zirconia all-ceramic (AC-FDP) posterior three-unit fixed dental prosthesis (FDP). Additionally, patients’ and professionals’ esthetic evaluations were compared. Materials and Methods: A convenience sample of 34 patients was randomized to receive a MC-FDP (n = 17) or an AC-FDP (n = 17). Patients were assessed using the OHIP-14 and also answered a questionnaire regarding satisfaction with function and esthetics using visual analog scales (VAS) before treatment and after 2 weeks, after 3 months, and after 1, 2, and 3 years. A fully dentate control group (n = 20) was also assessed using the OHIP-14. The operator and another observer evaluated the esthetics of the FDPs using VAS. Results: The patients assessed the two FDP types similarly for all parameters. In contrast, there was a statistically significant difference in OHIP-14 results between the treated patients and the control group before treatment. After treatment, a statistically significant improvement in OHIP-14 was observed at all examinations. Patients were highly satisfied with the function and esthetics of the FDPs. The overall satisfaction with esthetics was statistically significantly higher among the patients than among the professionals at three out of five examinations. Conclusion: The patients experienced improved OHRQoL and increased satisfaction with function and esthetics after receiving a posterior three-unit FDP. No important differences were observed between the two types of FDPs when evaluated by the patient or the professionals.


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2019 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc

IJP Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help