Home Subscription Services
 
   

 
The International Journal of Prosthodontics
IJP Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Accepted Manuscripts
Submit
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitterYouTube
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: IJP
The International Journal of Prosthodontics

Edited by George A. Zarb, BChD, DDS, MS, MS, FRCD(C)

ISSN 0893-2174

Publication:
November/December 2010
Volume 23 , Issue 6

Back
Share Abstract:

Five-Year Follow-up of Implant-Supported Y-TZP and ZTA Fixed Dental Prostheses. A Randomized, Prospective Clinical Trial Comparing Two Different Material Systems

Christel Larsson, DDS/Per Vult von Steyern, DDS, PhD

Pages: 555561
PMID: 21209993

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of two- to five-unit implant-supported all-ceramic restorations and to compare the results of two different all-ceramic systems, Denzir (DZ) and In-Ceram Zirconia (InZ). Materials and Methods: Eighteen patients were treated with a total of 25 two- to five-unit implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. Nine patients were given DZ system restorations and 9 were given InZ system restorations. The restorations were cemented with zinc phosphate cement onto customized titanium abutments and were evaluated after 1, 3, and 5 years. Results: At the 5-year follow-up, all restorations were in function; none had fractured. However, superficial cohesive (chip-off) fractures were observed in 9 of 18 patients (11 of 25 restorations). Sixteen units in the DZ group (9 of 13 restorations) and 3 in the InZ group (2 of 12 restorations) had chip-off fractures. The difference between the two groups regarding frequency of chip-off fractures was statistically significant (P < .05 at the FDP level and P < .001 at the unit level). Conclusion: The results suggest that all-ceramic implant-supported fixed dental prostheses of two to five units may be considered a treatment alternative. The DZ system, however, exhibited an unacceptable amount of veneering porcelain fractures and thus cannot be recommended for the type of treatment evaluated in this trial. Poor compatibility or problems with the bond mechanisms between the veneer and framework could not explain the chip-off fractures. Stress distribution, as well as other factors concerning the veneering porcelain, need to be evaluated further. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23:555561.

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.
  © 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog