Evaluation of Zirconia-Based All-Ceramic Single Crowns and Fixed Dental Prosthesis on Zirconia Implants: 5-Year Results of a Prospective Cohort Study

Clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes of zirconia and titanium implants in the posterior zone after 1 year of loading-A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) of posterior zirconia and titanium implants at 1 year of implant loading.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-two patients with two adjacent missing teeth were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial with a within-subject controlled design. Each patient received one zirconia (Zr) and one titanium (Ti) implant, with the mesial and distal positions randomized. The implant restoration consisted of multiple layered zirconia, with the buccal aspect veneered. In group Zr, the restoration was intraorally cemented onto the one-piece Zr implant, whereas in group Ti, the restoration was extraorally cemented onto the titanium base abutment and intraorally screw-retained onto the Ti implant. Examinations were performed following restoration delivery at baseline (BL) and at 1 year. Measurements included clinical parameters, radiographic outcomes (MBL) and PROMs.

RESULTS

Bleeding on probing showed an increase from BL to 1 year (34 ± 30% for Zr; 25 ± 21% for Ti). MBL remained stable with minimal changes from BL to 1 year, measuring 0.1 ± 0.4 mm (mean ± SD) for Zr and -0.1 ± 0.7 mm for Ti. Veneering fractures were the most frequent technical complication and amounted to 17.5% in group Zr and 5% in group Ti (p = .100). Patients preferred Zr implants for their soft tissue color, with a significant difference in perception between patients and clinicians (p < .017).

CONCLUSION

The study showed that both Zr and Ti implants had similar clinical outcomes, despite a high prevalence of mucositis and a few technical complications. Both implant types demonstrated stable marginal bone levels and similar patient-reported outcome measures.

[Research progress and clinical application of veneer materials for implant-fixed restoration in edentulous jaws]

Commonly used materials for fixed restorations in edentulous jaws include acrylic resins, polymerized ceramics, ceramics and zirconia, which have distinct physicochemical properties and clinical application features. The selection of these materials in clinical practice is related to the prosthodontic space, oral soft and hard tissue conditions, occlusal force, lifestyle habits, oral parafunctions, opposing dentition materials, and expectations of patients. Common mechanical complications associated with fixed restorations in edentulous jaws are cracking/chipping and abrasion of the facing materials, which can be avoided through occlusal adjustment, restoration design and processing, and the selection of appropriate restorative materials. This article reviews the characteristics, selection, and design considerations of commonly used materials for fixed restorations in edentulous jaws, as well as the causes and management of common clinical complications related to restorative materials, aiming to provide references for the selection of appropriate materials in fixed restorations for edentulous jaws in clinical practice.

Ceramic Implant Rehabilitation: Consensus Statements from Joint Congress for Ceramic Implantology: Consensus Statements on Ceramic Implant

The objectives of the study group focused on the following main topics related to the performance of 1- and 2-piece ceramic implants: defining bone-implant-contact percentages and its measurement methods, evaluating the pink esthetic score as an esthetic outcome parameter after immediate implantation, recognizing the different results of ceramic implant designs as redefined by the German Association of Oral Implantology, incorporating the patient report outcome measure to include satisfaction and improvement in oral health-related quality of life, and conducting preclinical studies to address existing gaps in ceramic implants. During the Joint Congress for Ceramic Implantology (2022), the study group evaluated 17 clinical trials published between 2015 and 2021. After extensive discussions and multiple closed sessions, consensus statements and recommendations were developed, incorporating all approved modifications. A 1-piece implant design features a coronal part that is fused to the implant body or interfaces with the postabutment restoration platform, undergoing transmucosal healing. Long-term evaluations of this implant design are supported by established favorable clinical evidence. Inaccuracies in the pink esthetic score and bone-implant-contact percentages were managed by establishing control groups for preclinical studies and randomizing clinical trials. The patient-reported outcome measures were adjusted to include an individual visual analog scale, collected from each clinical study, that quantified improved oral health and quality of life. Preclinical investigations should focus on examining the spread of ceramic debris and the impact of heat generation on tissue and cellular levels during drilling. Further technical advancements should prioritize wound management and developing safe drilling protocols.

Effect of abutment design on fracture resistance of resin-matrix ceramic crowns for dental implant restoration: an in vitro study

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to investigate the performance and fracture resistance of different resin-matrix ceramic materials for use in implant-supported single crowns with respect to the abutment design (crown thickness: 1 mm, 2 and 3 mm).

METHODS

Forty-eight abutments and crowns were fabricated on implants in the right lower first molar. Two resin-matrix ceramic materials for dental crowns were selected for study: (1) a glass-ceramic in a resin interpenetrating matrix (Vita Enamic, Vita, Germany) and (2) a resin-based composite with nanoparticle ceramic filler (Lava Ultimate, 3 M ESPE, USA). Three types of abutments were designed: 1 mm thick crown + custom titanium abutment, 2 mm thick crown + custom titanium abutment and 3 mm thick crown + prefabricated titanium abutment. The experiment was divided into 6 groups (n = 8) according to the crown materials and abutment designs. After 10,000 thermocycles, fracture resistance was measured using a universal testing machine. The statistical significance of differences between various groups were analysed with ANOVA followed by a post hoc Tukey's honestly significant difference test. The surfaces of the fractured specimens were examined with scanning electron microscopy (SEM).

RESULTS

Two-way ANOVA revealed that the abutment design (F = 28.44, P = 1.52 × 10^- 8<0.001) and the crown materials (F = 4.37, P = 0.043 < 0.05) had a significant effect on the fracture resistance of implant crown restoration. The Lava Ultimate-2 mm group showed the highest fracture resistance of 2222.74 ± 320.36 N, and the Vita Enamic-3 mm group showed the lowest fracture resistance of 1204.96 ± 130.50 N. Most of the 1 and 2 mm groups had partial crown fractures that could be repaired directly with resin, while the 3 mm group had longitudinal fracture of the crown, and the crowns were detached from the abutments.

CONCLUSION

Based on the in vitro data of this study, the fracture resistance of the 2 mm thick resin-matrix ceramic crown design was higher than that of the 1 and 3 mm groups. The 2 mm thick resin-matrix ceramic crown and personalized abutment are an option to replace zirconia for implant crown restoration.

Clinical performance of zirconium implants compared to titanium implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Purpose

To quantitatively assess and compare the clinical outcomes, including survival rate, success rate, and peri-implant indices of titanium and zirconium implants in randomized controlled trials.

Methods

The electronic databases searched included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline via Ovid, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported the effects of zirconium implants on primary outcomes, such as survival rate, success rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), and probing pocket depth (PPD), compared to titanium implants were included in this review. Two reviewers independently screened and selected the records, assessed their quality, and extracted the data from the included studies.

Results

A total of four studies from six publications reviewed were included. Two of the comparative studies were assessed at minimal risk of bias. Zirconium implants may have a lower survival rate (risk ratio (RR) = 0.91, CI [0.82-1.02], P = 0.100, I ² = 0%) and a significantly lower success rate than titanium implants (RR = 0.87, CI [0.78-0.98], P = 0.030, I ² = 0%). In addition, there was no difference between the titanium and zirconium implants in terms of MBL, PPD, bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque index (PI), and pink esthetic score (PES) (for MBL, MD = 0.25, CI [0.02-0.49], P = 0.033, I ² = 0%; for PPD, MD = -0.07, CI [-0.19-0.05], P = 0.250, I ² = 31%).

Conclusion

Zirconium implants may have higher failure rates due to their mechanical weakness. Zirconium implants should be strictly assessed before they enter the market. Further studies are required to confirm these findings.

Clinical outcomes of all-ceramic single crowns and fixed dental prostheses supported by ceramic implants: A systematic review and meta-analyses

Objective

To analyze the clinical outcomes of all‐ceramic single crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) supported by ceramic implants.

Materials and Methods

Based on a focused question and customized PICO framework, electronic (Medline/EMBASE/Cochrane) and manual searches for studies reporting the clinical outcomes of all‐ceramic SCs and FDPs supported by ceramic implants ≥12 months were performed. The primary outcomes were reconstruction survival and the chipping proportion. The secondary outcomes were implant survival, technical complications, and patient‐related outcome measurements. Meta‐analyses were performed after 1, 2, and 5 years using random‐effect meta‐analyses.

Results

Eight of the 1,403 initially screened titles and 55 full texts were included. Five reported on monolithic lithium disilicate (LS2) SCs, one on veneered zirconia SCs, and two on veneered zirconia SCs and FDPs, which reported all on cement‐retained reconstructions (mean observation: 12.0–61.0 months). Meta‐analyses estimated a 5‐year survival rate of 94% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 82%–100%) for overall implant survival. Reconstruction survival proportions after 5 years were: monolithic LS2, 100% (95%CI: 95%–100%); veneered zirconia SCs, 89% (95%CI: 62%–100%); and veneered zirconia FDPs 94% (95%CI: 81%–100%). The chipping proportion after 5 years was: monolithic LS2, 2% (95%CI: 0%–11%); veneered zirconia SCs, 38% (95%CI: 24%–54%); and veneered zirconia FDPs, 57% (95%CI: 38%–76%). Further outcomes were summarized descriptively.

Conclusions

Due to the limited data available, only tendencies could be identified. All‐ceramic reconstructions supported by ceramic implants demonstrated promising survival rates after mid‐term observation. However, high chipping proportions of veneered zirconia SCs and, particularly, FDPs diminished the overall outcome. Monolithic LS2 demonstrated fewer clinical complications. Monolithic reconstructions could be a valid treatment option for ceramic implants.

A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the survival, the failure, and the complication rates of veneered and monolithic all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns

Objective

To assess the survival, failure, and complication rates of veneered and monolithic all‐ceramic implant‐supported single crowns (SCs).

Methods

Literature search was conducted in Medline (PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until September 2020 for randomized, prospective, and retrospective clinical trials with follow‐up time of at least 1 year, evaluating the outcome of veneered and/or monolithic all‐ceramic SCs supported by titanium dental implants. Survival and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models.

Results

Forty‐nine RCTs and prospective studies reporting on 57 material cohorts were included. Meta‐analysis of the included studies indicated an estimated 3‐year survival rate of veneered‐reinforced glass‐ceramic implant‐supported SCs of 97.6% (95% CI: 87.0%–99.6%). The estimated 3‐year survival rates were 97.0% (95% CI: 94.0%–98.5%) for monolithic‐reinforced glass‐ceramic implant SCs, 96.9% (95% CI: 93.4%–98.6%) for veneered densely sintered alumina SCs, 96.3% (95% CI: 93.9%–97.7%) for veneered zirconia SCs, 96.1% (95% CI: 93.4%–97.8%) for monolithic zirconia SCs and only 36.3% (95% CI: 0.04%–87.7%) for resin‐matrix‐ceramic (RMC) SCs. With the exception of RMC SCs (p < 0.0001), the differences in survival rates between the materials did not reach statistical significance. Veneered SCs showed significantly (p = 0.017) higher annual ceramic chipping rates (1.65%) compared with monolithic SCs (0.39%). The location of the SCs, anterior vs. posterior, did not influence survival and chipping rates.

Conclusions

With the exception of RMC SCs, veneered and monolithic implant‐supported ceramic SCs showed favorable short‐term survival and complication rates. Significantly higher rates for ceramic chipping, however, were reported for veneered compared with monolithic ceramic SCs.

In Vitro Investigations in a Biomimetic Approach to Restore One-Piece Zirconia Implants

The objective of this study was to evaluate the fracture load and retention force of different bonding systems while restoring one-piece zirconia implants with a novel cementation approach using a mesostructure. Polymer-infiltrated ceramic mesostructures (n = 112) were therefore designed as caps on the implant abutment, and a molar feldspathic ceramic crown was constructed on top of it as a suprastructure. For cementation, different bonding systems were used. Fracture load and retention force were measured immediately after storage in water at 37 °C for 24 h (n = 8) as well as after artificial aging in a chewing simulator and subsequent thermal cycling (n = 8). Combined restorations showed higher fracture load compared to monolithic restorations of polymer-infiltrated ceramic (n = 8) or feldspathic ceramic (n = 8) identical in shape. However, the fracture load of the combined restorations was significantly affected by aging, independent of the primers and cements used. Restorations cemented with primers containing methyl methacrylate and 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate exhibited the highest retention force values. Aging did not affect the retention force significantly. Similar fracture load values can be expected from combination restorations when compared with monolithic crowns.

Fracture load of zirconia implant supported CAD/CAM resin crowns and mechanical properties of restorative material and cement

PURPOSE

To test if resin CAD/CAM materials should be considered for zirconia implants and how their mechanical properties affect the fracture load.

METHODS

Fracture load of molar crowns of CAD/CAM materials (VITA CAD-Temp [CT], Cerasmart [CS], Lava Ultimate [LU], Pekkton Ivory [PK]) on zirconia implants (ceramic.implant, 4.0 mm) fixed either with no cement, temporary cement (Harvard Implant semi-permanent [HIS]), self-adhesive (VITA Adiva S-Cem [VAS]) or either one of two adhesive cements (Multilink Automix [MLA], VITA Adiva F-Cem [VAF]) was analyzed. The restorative materials were characterized by their flexural strength, fracture toughness, elemental composition and organic/inorganic ratio while compressive strength of the cements was measured.

RESULTS

For the fracture load significantly highest mean values were fo und overall for PK (2921 ±300 N) > LU (2017 ±499 N) > CS (1463 ±367 N) = CT (1451 ±327 N) (p > 0.05). When analyzing the effect of the cement on the fracture load the overall ranking was VAF (2245 ±650 N) ≥ MLA (2188 ±708 N) ≥ VAS (2017 ±563 N) > HIS (1757 ±668 N) = no cement (1595 ±757 N) (p <0.05), meaning fracture load increased with the compressive strength of the cements. Additionally, a linear trend was found between the fracture load and the fracture toughness of the restorative materials.

CONCLUSIONS

All restorative materials exhibited fracture load values similar or higher than lithium disilicate tested previously. Fracture load of CT, CS and LU can be significantly increased when an adhesive cement with a high compressive strength is used.

Uncovering the Diversification of Tissue Engineering on the Emergent Areas of Stem Cells, Nanotechnology and Biomaterials

Damaged or disabled tissue is life-threatening due to the lack of proper treatment. Many conventional transplantation methods like autograft, iso-graft and allograft are in existence for ages, but they are not sufficient to treat all types of tissue or organ damages. Stem cells, with their unique capabilities like self-renewal and differentiate into various cell types, can be a potential strategy for tissue regeneration. However, the challenges like reproducibility, uncontrolled propagation and differentiation, isolation of specific kinds of cell and tumorigenic nature made these stem cells away from clinical application. Today, various types of stem cells like embryonic, fetal or gestational tissue, mesenchymal and induced-pluripotent stem cells are under investigation for their clinical application. Tissue engineering helps in configuring the stem cells to develop into a desired viable tissue, to use them clinically as a substitute for the conventional method. The use of stem cell-derived Extracellular Vesicles (EVs) is being studied to replace the stem cells, which decreases the immunological complications associated with the direct administration of stem cells. Tissue engineering also investigates various biomaterials to use clinically, either to replace the bones or as a scaffold to support the growth of stemcells/ tissue. Depending upon the need, there are various biomaterials like bio-ceramics, natural and synthetic biodegradable polymers to support replacement or regeneration of tissue. Like the other fields of science, tissue engineering is also incorporating the nanotechnology to develop nano-scaffolds to provide and support the growth of stem cells with an environment mimicking the Extracellular matrix (ECM) of the desired tissue. Tissue engineering is also used in the modulation of the immune system by using patient-specific Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSCs) and by modifying the physical features of scaffolds that may provoke the immune system. This review describes the use of various stem cells, biomaterials and the impact of nanotechnology in regenerative medicine.

Biomaterial and biomechanical considerations to prevent risks in implant therapy

This paper is aimed to present a biomaterials perspective in implant therapy that fosters improved bone response and long-term biomechanical competence from surgical instrumentation to final prosthetic rehabilitation. Strategies to develop implant surface texturing will be presented and their role as an ad hoc treatment discussed in light of the interplay between surgical instrumentation and implant macrogeometric configuration. Evidence from human retrieved implants in service for several years and from in vivo studies will be used to show how the interplay between surgical instrumentation and implant macrogeometry design affect osseointegration healing pathways, and bone morphologic and long-term mechanical properties. Also, the planning of implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitations targeted at long-term performance will be appraised from a standpoint where personal preferences (eg, cementing or screwing a prosthesis) can very often fail to deliver the best patient care. Lastly, the acknowledgement that every rehabilitation will have its strength degraded over time once in function will be highlighted, since the potential occurrence of even minor failures is rarely presented to patients prior to treatment.

All-ceramic single crowns supported by zirconia implants: 5-year results of a prospective multicenter study

OBJECTIVES

To assess survival/success rates and patient-reported outcome of zirconia-based posterior single crowns (SCs) supported by zirconia implants in a prospective two-center study after five years of observation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Forty-five patients were restored with 45 zirconia implant-supported posterior SCs composed of zirconia frameworks hand-layered with a leucite-reinforced feldspathic ceramic. Survival rates of SCs were assessed and technical success was evaluated according to modified United States Public Health Care (USPHS) criteria. Furthermore, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed by applying visual analog scales (VAS). Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test, mixed-effects ordered logistic regression, and linear mixed models were used to evaluate time effects on response variables.

RESULTS

Forty patients were available after a mean observation period of 61.0 ± 1.4 months. One SC had to be replaced, resulting in a Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival estimate for the SCs of 97.5 ± 2.47%. Since nine reconstructions showed at least in one category a major deviation from the ideal (five major chippings, four with increased occlusal roughness, one significant crevice, and one pronounced over-contouring), the KM success estimate was 79.3 ± 5.8%. Incidence of chipping (n = 19) and occlusal roughness (n = 35) was frequent (p < 0.001). All PROMs at prosthetic delivery except for speech (p = 0.139) showed significantly improved VAS scores (81%-94%; p < 0.001) compared to pre-treatment evaluations. Thereafter, no decrease in satisfaction could be observed until the 5-year follow-up (93%-97%).

CONCLUSION

Veneered zirconia-based SCs supported by zirconia implants showed high survival rates and highly satisfied patients' needs. However, significant incidence of technical complications is compromising the clinical long-term outcome for this indication.

Management of Implant/Prosthodontic Complications

Dental implants continue to grow in popularity because they are a predictable treatment to replace missing teeth. They have a high success rate; however, they are still associated with some clinical complications. This article discusses a diverse range of complications related to the restorative and mechanical aspects of dental implants and the management of such complications, as well as potential factors contributing to them.

Clinical outcomes of partial and full-arch all-ceramic implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the survival and technical complication rate of partial and full-arch all-ceramic implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (P-FDP/FA-FDP) and supporting implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search through three databases (MEDLINE/Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase) was conducted to identify relevant clinical studies with an observation period of at least 12 months, including ≥15 patients. Reconstruction and implant survival rates, technical complications and confounding variables such as processed/installed materials, retention mode and location in the mouth were obtained. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using standard Poisson regression models to calculate 5-year survival and complication estimates.

RESULTS

A total of five studies for the P-FDP group and seven studies for the FA-FDP group were included, throughout evaluating veneered zirconia reconstructions. In the P-FDP group, reconstructions were located in posterior regions. Meta-analysis indicated survival estimates on the reconstruction level of 98.3% and 97.7% for P- and FA-FDPs after 5 years. However, chipping of the veneering ceramic was frequent, resulting in estimated 5-year complication rates of 22.8% (P-FDPs) and 34.8% (FA-FDPs). Five-year survival estimates of implants supporting P-FDPs and FA-FDPs of 98.5% and 99.4% were calculated, respectively. Including a total of 540 FDPs, one screw-loosening and 11 de-cementations were reported. Confounding variables were not found to have a significant influence on survival and complication rates.

CONCLUSIONS

All-ceramic implant-supported P- and FA-FDPs comprising veneered zirconia frameworks showed high survival but clinically inacceptable fracture rates of the veneering ceramic. Their suitability with regard to this indication and a successful long-term outcome needs to be further evaluated.

The clinical performance of all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed at evaluating the survival and technical complication rates of all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns (SC).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Three electronic databases were searched for clinical studies conducted at ≥ 15 patients examining implant-supported all-ceramic SCs over ≥ 12 months. Survival rates of implants and restorations plus technical complication rates of SCs were calculated and tested for statistical correlation with confounding variables. Statistical analysis was performed using a negative binomial distribution model to calculate 5- and 10-year survival and complication estimates.

RESULTS

Forty-one included studies reported on implant-supported SCs made of veneered and monolithic high-strength oxide ceramics, monolithic, and veneered glass-based ceramics and of a monolithic resin-nano-ceramic (RNC). Survival estimates for SCs of 93% (95% CI: 86.6%-96.4%) after 5 years and 94.4% (95% CI: 91.1%-96.5%) after 10 years were calculated, corresponding values for implant survival were 95.3% (95% CI: 90.6%-97.7%) and 96.2% (95% CI: 95.1%-97.1%). Technical complication rates after 5/10 years were as follows: chipping 9.0% (95% CI: 5.4%-14.8%)/2.7% (95% CI: 2.1%-3.5%), framework fractures 1.9% (95% CI: 0.7%-4.9%)/1.2% (95% CI: 1%-1.5%), screw loosening 3.6% (95% CI: 1.6%-8.4%)/5.2% (95% CI: 3.6%-7.5%), and decementations with 1.1% (95% CI: 0.4%-2.8%) after 5 years. Some confounding variables influenced the above-mentioned estimates significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

All-ceramic implant-supported SCs showed-with the exception of a RNC material-high survival rates. However, failures and technical complications occurred which have to be considered when informing patients on the treatment with implant-supported all-ceramic SCs.

Metal free, full arch, fixed prosthesis for edentulous mandible rehabilitation on four implants

PURPOSE

The goal of this work is to describe an implant-prosthetic protocol for rehabilitation of edentulous mandible, by using a fixed prosthesis made of fiber-reinforced composite material (FRC). The protocol contemplates a minimal invasive surgery and ensures predictable and safe results, with good aesthetic and performance combined to cost savings.

METHODS

FRC material is used to build the substructure of a prosthetic framework supported by four short implants (5mm long and 4mm wide). The prosthesis substructure is made of Trinia immersed in a matrix of epoxy resin (FRC). It is supplied in milling blocks (pre-cured) for the CAD/CAM (computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing) technique. Implants are placed in lower edentulous jaw in position of first molar and canine, each side. Four month after, a resin bar is build based on a stone model, denture teeth are placed and the occlusion is checked. The resin bar and the stone model with milled abutments are scanned and a FRC bar is achieved with the CAD/CAM technique. The teeth are mounted to the substructure trough denture resin. Temporary cementation of framework is achieved on the abutments connected to the implants.

CONCLUSION

A protocol for a fixed mandibular implant-prosthetic rehabilitation is described. The protocol contemplates a minimal invasive surgery and ensures predictable and safe results, with good aesthetic and performance combined to cost savings. In addition, this technique allows performing basic surgery also in presence of atrophy.

Correlations between fracture load of zirconia implant supported single crowns and mechanical properties of restorative material and cement

Zirconia implants that were restored with veneered zirconia displayed severe chipping rates of the restorations in clinical studies. Purpose of this study was to evaluate the fracture load of different zirconia implant supported monolithic crown materials (zirconia, alumina, lithium disilicate, feldspar ceramic and polymer-infiltrated ceramic) cemented with various cements (Harvard LuteCem SE, Harvard Implant Semi-permanent, Multilink Automix, VITA Adiva F-Cem). Flexural strength and fracture toughness of crown materials and compressive strength of the cements were measured. Fracture load values of crowns fabricated from lithium disilicate, feldspar ceramic and polymer-infiltrated ceramic were increased when cement with high compressive strength was used. Fracture loads for zirconia and alumina crowns were not influenced by the cement. Flexural strength and fracture toughness of the ceramics correlated linearly with the respective fracture load when using adhesive cement with high compressive strength. To achieve sufficient fracture load values, cementation with adhesive cement is essential for feldspar and polymer-infiltrated ceramic.

Clinical and patient-reported outcomes of zirconia-based implant fixed dental prostheses: Results of a prospective case series 5 years after implant placement

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical and patient-reported outcome of all-ceramic zirconia implant supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) 5 years after implant installation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirteen patients were treated with two terminally placed one-piece zirconia implants for a three-unit FDP each. The FDPs consisted of a CAD/CAM-fabricated zirconia framework over-pressed with a fluor-apatite veneering ceramic and were adhesively cemented. Survival and success were assessed by applying modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria and preparation of Kaplan-Meier (KM) plots. Alpha and Bravo ratings were accepted for success (among others including small area veneer chippings and occlusal roughness), whereas Charlie ratings allowing for intra-oral correction (e.g., polishing) were accepted for survival. Furthermore, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were analyzed with the help of visual analogue scales (VAS). Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test (USPHS criteria) and linear mixed models (PROMs) were used to evaluate time effects on response variables.

RESULTS

All patients were available 61.8 ± 1.1 months after implant installation (53.6 ± 3.1 months after final prosthesis insertion). FDP survival was 100%. Significant incidence of veneer chipping (p = .0096) and occlusal roughness (p = .0019) was observed. Charlie rated extent of both phenomena resulted in a KM success estimate of 38.5% (95% CI: 14.1%-62.8%; seven FDPs with obvious roughness, three of them with extended veneer chipping). Compared with the pre-treatment assessments (30%-81% of satisfaction), all surveys at prosthetic delivery showed significantly improved VAS scores (66%-93%; p ≤ .038), except for speech (p = .341). Concerning function, esthetics and self-esteem, no decrease in satisfaction could be observed until the end of follow-up (90%-96%; p ≥ .057), whereas perception of sense (92%) and speech (95%) increased over time (p ≤ .030). Occurrence of technical complications did not correlate with patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Bi-layered FDPs made from zirconia/fluor-apatite highly satisfied patients but showed significant incidence of technical complications.

Influence of cement type and ceramic primer on retention of polymer-infiltrated ceramic crowns to a one-piece zirconia implant

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The best procedure for cementing a restoration to zirconia implants has not yet been established.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the retention of polymer-infiltrated ceramic crowns to zirconia 1-piece implants using a wide range of cements. The effect of ceramic primer treatment on the retention force was also recorded. The retention results were correlated with the shear bond strength of the cement to zirconia and the indirect tensile strength of the cements to better understand the retention mechanism.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The retention test was performed using 100 polymer-infiltrated ceramic crowns (Vita Enamic) and zirconia implants (ceramic.implant CI) The crowns were cemented with either interim cement (Harvard Implant semipermanent, Temp Bond), glass-ionomer cement (Ketac Cem), self-adhesive cement (Perma Cem 2.0, RelyX Unicem Automix 2, Panavia SA), or adhesive cement (Multilink Implant, Multilink Automix, Vita Adiva F-Cem, RelyX Ultimate, Panavia F 2.0, Panavia V5 or Panavia 21) (n=5). Additionally ceramic primer was applied on the intaglio crown surface and implant abutment before cementation for all adhesive cements (Multilink Implant, Multilink Automix: Monobond plus; RelyX Ultimate Scotchbond Universal; Vita Adiva F-Cem: Vita Adiva Zr-Prime; Panavia F2.0, Panavia V5: Clearfil Ceramic Primer) and 1 self-adhesive cement containing 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP) (Panavia SA: Clearfil Ceramic Primer). Crown debond fracture patterns were recorded. Shear bond strength was determined for the respective cement groups to polished zirconia (n=6). The diametral tensile strength of the cements was measured (n=10). Statistical analysis was performed using 1-way or 2-way analysis of variance followed by the Fisher LSD test (α=.05) within each test parameter.

RESULTS

Adhesive and self-adhesive resin cements had shear bond strength values of 0.0 to 5.3 MPa and revealed similar retention forces. Cements containing MDP demonstrated shear bond strength values above 5.3 MPa and displayed increased retention. The highest retention values were recorded for Panavia F 2.0 (318 ±28 N) and Panavia 21 (605 ±82 N). All other adhesive and self-adhesive resin cements attained retention values between 222 ±16 N (Multilink Automix) and 270 ±26 N (Panavia SA), which were significantly higher (P<.05) than glass-ionomer (Ketac Cem: 196 ±34 N) or interim cement (Harvard Implant semipermanent: 43 ±6 N, Temp Bond: 127 ±13 N). Application of manufacturer-specific ceramic primer increased crown retention significantly only for Panavia SA.

CONCLUSIONS

Products containing MDP provided a high chemical bond to zirconia. Self-adhesive and adhesive resin cements with low chemical bonding capabilities to zirconia provided retention force values within a small range (220 to 290 N).

Interfacial modulus mapping of layered dental ceramics using nanoindentation

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to test the modulus of elasticity (E) across the interfaces of yttria stabilized zirconia (YTZP) / veneer multilayers using nanoindentation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

YTZP core material (KaVo-Everest, Germany) specimens were either coated with a liner (IPS e.max ZirLiner, Ivoclar-Vivadent) (Type-1) or left as-sintered (Type-2) and subsequently veneered with a pressable glass-ceramic (IPS e.max ZirPress, Ivoclar-Vivadent). A 5 µm (nominal tip diameter) spherical indenter was used with a UMIS CSIRO 2000 (ASI, Canberra, Australia) nanoindenter system to test E across the exposed and polished interfaces of both specimen types. The multiple point load – partial unload method was used for E determination. All materials used were characterized using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and X – ray powder diffraction (XRD). E mappings of the areas tested were produced from the nanoindentation data.

RESULTS

A significantly (P<.05) lower E value between Type-1 and Type-2 specimens at a distance of 40 µm in the veneer material was associated with the liner. XRD and SEM characterization of the zirconia sample showed a fine grained bulk tetragonal phase. IPS e-max ZirPress and IPS e-max ZirLiner materials were characterized as amorphous.

CONCLUSION

The liner between the YTZP core and the heat pressed veneer may act as a weak link in this dental multilayer due to its significantly (P<.05) lower E. The present study has shown nanoindentation using spherical indentation and the multiple point load - partial unload method to be reliable predictors of E and useful evaluation tools for layered dental ceramic interfaces.

A systematic review of the clinical survival of zirconia implants

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to evaluate the clinical success and survival rates of zirconia ceramic implants after at least 1 year of function and to assess if there is sufficient evidence to justify using them as alternatives to titanium implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) databases was performed in April 2015 by two independent examiners to retrieve clinical studies focusing on the survival rate of zirconia implants after at least 1 year of function. Implant survival was estimated using the overall proportion reported in the studies with a Clopper-Pearson 95 % confidence interval (random effect model with a Der-Simonian Laird estimate).

RESULTS

Fourteen articles were selected out of the 1519 titles initially screened. The overall survival rate of zirconia one- and two-piece implants was calculated at 92 % (95 % CI 87-95) after 1 year of function. The survival of implants at 1 year for the selected studies revealed considerable heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

In spite of the unavailability of sufficient long-term evidence to justify using zirconia oral implants, zirconia ceramics could potentially be the alternative to titanium for a non-metallic implant solution. However, further clinical studies are required to establish long-term results, and to determine the risk of technical and biological complications. Additional randomized controlled clinical trials examining two-piece zirconia implant systems are also required to assess their survival and success rates in comparison with titanium as well as one-piece zirconia implants.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Zirconia implants provide a potential alternative to titanium ones. However, clinicians must be aware of the lack of knowledge regarding long-term outcomes and specific reasons for failure.

Prosthetic failure in implant dentistry

Although osseointegrated dental implants have become a predictable and effective modality for the treatment of single or multiple missing teeth, their use is associated with clinical complications. Such complications can be biologic, technical, mechanical, or esthetic and may compromise implant outcomes to various degrees. This article presents prosthetic complications accompanied with implant-supported single and partial fixed dental prostheses.