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

Risk Factors Associated with Failure and Technical Complications of Implant-Supported Single Crowns: A Retrospective Study

Background and Objectives: Implant-supported single crowns have become a routine approach for the replacement of missing single teeth, being considered as one of the most common ways of rehabilitation when adjacent teeth are healthy. The present retrospective study aimed to investigate the risk factors possibly associated with failure and technical complications of implant-supported single crowns and their supporting implants. Materials and Methods: Patients treated at one faculty (2009-2019) were considered for inclusion. Complications investigated included ceramic fracture/chipping, crown loss of retention/mobility, crown failure/fracture, loosening/loss/fracture of prosthetic screw, and implant failure/fracture. Any condition/situation that led to the removal/replacement of crowns (implant failure not included) was considered prosthesis failure. Univariate/multivariate Cox regression models were used to evaluate the associations between clinical covariates and failure. Results: 278 patients (358 crowns) were included. Mean ± SD follow-up was 56.5 ± 29.7 months. Seven implants (after a mean of 76.5 ± 43.7 months) and twenty crowns (21.3 ± 23.5 months) failed. The cumulative survival rate (CSR) for crowns was 93.5% after 5, remaining at 92.2% between 6 and 11 years. The most common reasons for crown failure were porcelain large fracture (n = 6), crown repeatedly loose (n = 6), and porcelain chipping (n = 5). Men and probable bruxism were identified in the Cox regression model as being associated with crown failure. The most common observed technical complications were mobility of the crown and chipping of the ceramic material, with the latter being observed even in crowns manufactured of monolithic zirconia. Cases with at least one technical complication (not considering loss of screw hole sealing) were more common among probable bruxers than in non-bruxers (p = 0.002). Cases of ceramic chipping were more common among bruxers than in non-bruxers (p = 0.014, log-rank test). Conclusions: Probable bruxism and patient's sex (men) were factors associated with a higher risk of failure of implant-supported single crowns.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of zirconia dental implants-A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

For the present review, the following focused question was addressed: In patients with root-analog dental implants, what is the effect of implants made of other materials than titanium (alloy) on implant survival, marginal bone loss (MBL), and technical and biological complications after at least 5 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic (Medline, Embase, Web of Science) search was performed to identify observational clinical studies published from January 2000 investigating a minimum of 20 commercially available zirconia implants with a mean follow-up of at least 60 months. Primary outcome was implant survival, secondary outcomes included peri-implant MBL, probing depths (PDs), and technical and biological complications. Meta-analyses were performed to evaluate implant survival, MBL, and PD.

RESULTS

From 5129 titles, 580 abstracts were selected, and 111 full-text articles were screened. Finally, 4 prospective and 2 retrospective observational clinical cohort studies were included for data extraction. Meta-analyses estimated after 5 years of loading mean values of 97.2% (95% CI 94.7-99.1) for survival (277 implants, 221 patients), 1.1 mm (95% CI: 0.9-1.3) for MBL (229 implants, 173 patients), and 3.0 mm (95% CI 2.5-3.4) for PDs (231 implants, 175 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

After 5 years, commercially available zirconia implants showed reliable clinical performance based on survival rates, MBL, and PD values. However, more well-designed prospective clinical studies and randomized clinical trials investigating titanium and zirconia implants are needed to confirm the presently evaluated promising outcomes.

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.

Monolithic hybrid abutment crowns (screw-retained) versus monolithic hybrid abutments with adhesively cemented monolithic crowns

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to compare monolithic hybrid abutment crowns (screw-retained) versus monolithic hybrid abutments with adhesively cemented monolithic single-tooth crowns.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty subjects in need of an implant-borne restoration were randomly assigned to receive either a cement-retained (CRR) or a screw-retained (SRR) implant-supported monolithic lithium disilicate (LS₂ ) reconstruction. Each patient received a titanium implant with in internal conic connection. After osseointegration and second-stage surgery, healing abutments were placed for about 10 days. The type of restoration (CRR vs. SRR) was randomly assigned, and the restorations were manufactured of monolithic LS₂ . Both types of restorations, CRR and SRR, were based on a titanium component (Ti-base) that was bonded to the abutment (CRR) or the crown (SRR). The follow-up period for all restoration was 36 months. Clinical outcome was evaluated according to Functional Implant Prosthetic Score (FIPS). Quality of live (OHIP) and patient's satisfaction were assessed using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Primary endpoint was loss of restoration for any reason. Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed and log-rank testing was performed (p < .05).

RESULTS

One restoration of group CRR failed after 6 months due to loss of adhesion between Ti-base and individual abutment. No further biological or technical failures occurred. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant difference between both treatment options (p = .317). There was no statistically significant difference between both types of restoration, neither for FIPS, OHIP, treatment time nor patient satisfaction (p > .05).

CONCLUSION

Monolithic hybrid abutment crowns (screw-retained) and monolithic hybrid abutment with adhesively cemented monolithic crowns using lithium disilicate showed no statistically significant difference for implant-based reconstructions in this pilot RCT setting.

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 and radiographic prospective study of customized one-piece titanium and one-piece fusion-sputtered zirconia implants: five-year mean follow-up

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the clinical and radiographic assessment of customized fusion-sputtered one-piece zirconia implants.

METHODS

Twenty-eight patients received either fusion sputtered one-piece zirconia implants (n = 14) or one-piece titanium implants (n = 14). All implants were one-piece designs. After 4 months of immediate loading, all implants were restored with a monolithic zirconia crown. All implants were evaluated at baseline, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years. Implant mobility, plaque index, and gingival index evaluations were performed. The measurements of marginal bone level were calculated radiographically.

RESULTS

All implants were well maintained through the evaluation period with a 100% survival rate without any clinical complications. Regarding gingival index, there was no statistically significant difference (P = .364) between zirconia (3.3 ± 0.7 mm) and titanium (3.5 ± 0.6 mm) implants, after 5 years. There was no statistically significant difference (P = .470) between zirconia (1.77 ± 0.039 mm) and titanium (1.80 ± 0.28 mm) implants regarding marginal bone loss, after 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

One-piece fusion-sputtered zirconia implant represents a reliable treatment modality in replacing a missing tooth in the esthetic zone.

Investigation of the Damping Capabilities of Different Resin-Based CAD/CAM Restorative Materials

The aim of the present study was to evaluate and quantify the damping properties of common resin-based computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) restorative materials (CRMs) and assess their energy dissipation abilities. Leeb hardness (HLD), together with its deduced energy dissipation data (HLD_dis), and loss tangent values recorded via dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) were determined for six polymer, four composite, and one ceramic CRM as well as one metal. Data were statistically analyzed. Among resin-based CRMs, the significantly highest HLD_dis data were detected for the fiber-reinforced composite FD (p < 0.001) directly followed by the filler-reinforced Ambarino High Class (p < 0.001). The significantly lowest HLD_dis values were observed for the polymer-based CRM Telio CAD (p < 0.001). For loss tangent, both PEEK materials showed the significantly lowest data and the polymer-based M-PM the highest results with all composite CRMs in between. HLD_dis data, which simultaneously record the energy dissipation mechanism of plastic material deformation, more precisely characterize the damping behavior of resin-based CRMs compared to loss tangent results that merely describe viscoelastic material behavior. Depending on material composition, resin-based CRMs reveal extremely different ratios of viscoelastic damping but frequently show enhanced HLD_dis values because of plastic material deformation. Future developments in CAD/CAM restorative technology should focus on developing improved viscoelastic damping effects.

Prospective Clinical Evaluation of Posterior Third-Generation Monolithic Zirconia Crowns Fabricated with Complete Digital Workflow: Two-Year Follow-Up

Clinical studies on the behavior of posterior translucent monolithic zirconia restorations are lacking. We assessed the clinical outcome and survival rate of posterior third-generation monolithic zirconia crowns over a 2-year period. A total of 24 patients, requiring 30 posterior full-contour restorations were selected. All abutments were scanned, and crowns were milled and cemented with a self-adhesive dual cure cement. Crowns were assessed using the California Dental Association’s criteria. Gingival status was assessed by evaluating the gingival index, plaque index, periodontal probing depth of the abutments and control teeth, and the margin index of the abutment teeth. Statistical analyses were performed using the Friedman and the Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. During the 2-year follow-up, no biological or mechanical complications were observed, and the survival and success rate was 100%. All restorations ranked as satisfactory throughout the follow-up period. The gingival index and plaque index were worse at the end of the 2-year follow-up. The margin index was stable during the 2 years of clinical service. No significant differences were recorded in periodontal parameters between crowns and control teeth. Third-generation monolithic zirconia could be a reliable alternative to posterior metal–ceramic and second-generation monolithic zirconia posterior crowns.

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.

Mechanical performance of a hybrid zirconia developed through hydrothermal treatment and Room-Temperature Atomic Layer Deposition (RT-ALD)

OBJECTIVE

A silica-based nanofilm has been successfully deposited via Room-Temperature Atomic Layer Deposition (RT-ALD) on the surface of a glass. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the mechanical performance of a hybrid interface created between yttria-stabilized zirconia (Y-PSZ) transformed layer and silica-based nanofilm via RT-ALD.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fully-sintered Y-PSZ (14 × 4.0 × 1.5 mm) specimens in different translucencies (MO, MT, LT; IPS e.max Zircad, Ivoclar Vivadent) were distributed in 5 groups: control (C - no treatment); hydrothermal treatment (HT- 15h, 134°C, 2 bar); alumina blasting (B - 50 μm Al₂O₃); RT-ALD silica deposition (S); HT followed by silica deposition (HTS). RT-ALD cycles consisted of the sequential exposure of specimens to tetramethoxysilane orthosilicate (TMOS - 60s) and ammonium hydroxide (NH₄OH - 10 min) vapors in 40 cycles. Mechanical performance was analyzed by flexural strength (FS) (n = 10) and fatigue failure load (staircase method; n = 20) tests. Surface hardness (H) and Young's modulus (YM) were analyzed by nanoindentation. For surface chemical and topographical characterization, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) were performed. Data from surface H, YM, FS, and fatigue limit (FL) were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).

RESULTS

The interaction between material and treatment had a significant effect on FS (p < 0.001). The FS values ranged from 436.23 MPa to 856.65 MPa. HT resulted in the highest FS (856.65 MPa) for LT and the lowest FS (436.23 MPa) for MO zirconia. For all materials, S and B treatments resulted in similar FS values (p > 0.410). S did not affect FL when compared to the C group (p > 0.277) for any material investigated. HTS resulted in higher FL than S for LT and MO materials (p < 0.001). Surface hardness and modulus were similar between control and S-treated specimens for all materials analyzed. XPS analysis showed homogeneous silica content after 20 and 40 RT-ALD cycles, and SEM did not show significant changes in surface morphology between C and S-treated specimens.

CONCLUSION

RT-ALD resulted in effective silica deposition without any deleterious effect on zirconia-based materials mechanical properties. Alumina blasting promoted higher alteration on surface topography. HT prior to S resulted in superior FL (for MO and MT) and flexural strength (MO) for some of the materials investigated.

Influence of zirconia implant surface topography on first bone implant contact within a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although 5-year clinical data exist for different zirconia implants, no analysis has yet been performed focusing on how the surface topography of the implant affects clinical parameters.

PURPOSE

To analyze the influence of zirconia implant topography on first bone implant contact (fBIC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a prospective two-center cohort investigation 63 zirconia implants were evaluated at implant placement, prosthetic delivery, 1, 3, and 5 years. The distance (DIB) between implant shoulder and fBIC was measured at each time point in periapical radiographs at mesial and distal sites. Two-way ANOVA/Bonferroni was used to analyze the effects of time and center (α < 0.05).

RESULTS

Between the centers, the mean DIB varied significantly at implant placement (Freiburg [FR]: 1.4 ± 0.6 mm; Zurich [ZH]: 0.8 ± 0.5 mm). Thereafter, no statistically significant difference in DIB was observed, neither between centers nor between time points (prosthetic delivery: FR: 1.9 ± 0.6 mm, ZH: 1.7 ± 0.8 mm; 1 year: FR: 1.8 ± 0.6 mm, ZH: 1.6 ± 0.8 mm; 3 years: FR: 1.9 ± 0.8 mm, ZH: 1.7 ± 0.8 mm; 5 years: FR: 1.9 ± 0.8 mm, ZH 1.8 ± 0.6 mm). The overall mean DIB at prosthetic delivery to 5 years of both centers (1.8 ± 0.7 mm) is located within the transition zone between the smooth neck and the moderately rough intraosseous part (1.6-2.0 mm from the implant shoulder). However, individual DIB values are ranging from 0.1 to 4.2 mm overlapping the transition zone.

CONCLUSIONS

The standard deviation of the DIB indicates that the fBIC establishes on moderately rough and smooth surfaces. Consequently, soft tissue adapts to both topographies as well.

Failure Load and Fatigue Behavior of Monolithic Translucent Zirconia, PICN and Rapid-Layer Posterior Single Crowns on Zirconia Implants

This laboratory study aimed to evaluate the thermo-mechanical fatigue behavior and failure modes of monolithic and rapid-layer posterior single-crowns (SCs) supported by zirconia implants. Methods: 120 all-ceramic crowns supported by one-piece zirconia implants (ceramic.implant; vitaclinical) were divided into five groups (n = 24 each): Group Z-HT: 3Y-TZP monolithic-zirconia (Vita-YZ-HT); Group Z-ST: 4Y-TZP monolithic-zirconia (Vita-YZ-ST); Z-XT: 5Y-TZP monolithic-zirconia (Vita-YZ-XT); Group E: monolithic-polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN,Vita-Enamic); Group RL (rapid layer): PICN-“table-top” (Vita-Enamic), 3Y-TZP-framework (Vita-YZ-HT). Half of the specimens of each group (n = 12) were exposed to fatigue with cyclic mechanical loading (F = 198N, 1.2-million cycles) and simultaneous thermocycling (5–55 °C). Single-load-to-failure testing (Z010, Zwick) was performed for all specimens without/with fatigue application. Data analysis was performed using ANOVA, Tukey’s post-hoc test, two-sample t-test and Bonferroni correction (p < 0.05). Results: All specimens survived fatigue exposure. Significant differences in failure loads were detected among groups (p ≤ 0.004). Materials Z-HT and Z-ST showed the highest failure loads followed by Z-XT, RL and E. The influence of fatigue was only significant for material RL. Conclusions: All types of tested materials exceeded clinically acceptable failure load values higher than 900N and can be recommended for clinical use. Z-HT and Z-ST appear to be highly reliable towards fatigue. Rapid-layer design of PICN and YZ-HT might be an interesting treatment concept for posterior implant SCs.

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.

Influence of roughening procedures and priming agents on shear bond strength of CAD/CAM materials to zirconia frameworks

This study investigated the influence of roughening procedures and application of primers on shear bond strengths of CAD/CAM composite resin material or ceramic material to zirconia frameworks. A CAD/CAM composite resin block (Katana Avencia Block; AVE) and lithium disilicate glass-ceramic block (IPS e.max CAD; IEC) were used as veneer materials. The veneers were divided into three surface treatment groups; HF, hydrofluoric acid etching; AB, airborne-particle abrasion; and CON, no surface treatment. Each veneer was primed with four agents: Clearfil Porcelain Bond Activator (ACT), Clearfil Photo Bond (CPB), Clearfil Photo Bond with Porcelain Bond Activator (CPB+ACT), and no priming (UP). The zirconia frameworks and AVE or IEC veneers were resin-bonded. In the AVE specimen, AB treatment showed significantly higher shear bond strength than the other treatments at 0 and 20,000 thermocycles, except for UP and CPB+ACT groups at 20,000 thermocycles. Airborne-particle abrasion is necessary for resin bonding to Avencia blocks.

Scientific Trends in Clinical Research on Zirconia Dental Implants: A Bibliometric Review

Background: The clinical use of zirconia implants has been shown to increase steadily due to their biological, aesthetic, and physical properties; therefore, this bibliometric study aimed to review the clinical research and co-authors in the field of zirconia dental implant rehabilitation. Methods: We searched Scopus and Web of Science databases using a comprehensive search strategy to 5 October 2020, and independently paired reviewers who screened studies, and collected data with inclusion criteria restricted to clinical research only (either prospective or retrospective). Data on article title, co-authors, number of citations received, journal details, publication year, country and institution involved, funding, study design, marginal bone loss, survival rate, failure, follow-up, and the author’s bibliometric data were collected and evaluated. Results: A total of 29 clinical studies were published between 2008 and 2020 as 41.4% were prospective cohort studies and 48.3% originated from Germany. Most of the included studies had been published in Clinical Oral Implant Research (n = 12), and the most productive institution was the Medical Center of University of Freiburg. The author with the largest number of clinical studies on zirconia implants was Kohal R.J. (n = 10), followed by Spies B.C. (n = 8). Conclusions: This study revealed that zirconia implants have been more prominent in the last ten years, which is a valuable option for oral rehabilitation with marginal bone loss and survival rate comparable to titanium dental implants.

Crestal bone response to loaded zirconia and titanium implants: a radiographic and histometric analysis in canines

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the crestal bone response to a two-piece zirconia implant compared with a control titanium implant using periapical radiographs (PAs) and histometry.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty zirconia and 30 titanium implants were placed in healed posterior mandibles of five canines. Full-ceramic single-tooth restorations were cemented after 6 weeks of healing. Three observers measured the distance between the implant shoulder and the crestal bone (DIB) at placement, loading, and harvesting after 4 or 16 weeks in function. The influence of implant material and loading time on DIB as well as the inter-observer agreement were analyzed. Additionally, histometric distance between implant shoulder and most coronal bone-to-implant contact (IS-cBIC) was compared with DIB.

RESULTS

Mean DIB values increased between 4 and 16 weeks of loading for both zirconia (from 1.66 to 2.25 mm; P < 0.0001) and titanium (from 1.81 to 1.95 mm; P = 0.06). Zirconia yielded mean IS-cBIC values of 2.18 mm and 2.48 mm (P < 0.001) and titanium 2.23 mm and 2.34 mm (P = 0.27) after 4 and 16 weeks, respectively. The raters reached an excellent intraclass correlation coefficient. PAs underestimated the bone loss on average by 0.39 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

Zirconia implants showed a greater increase of DIB during early healing and function than titanium.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Crestal peri-implant tissue dimensions may show more pronounced changes around two-piece zirconia implants during early healing. PAs may underestimate peri-implant bone loss.

Zirconia implants restored with single crowns or fixed dental prostheses: 5-year results of a prospective cohort investigation

AIM

To evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of one-piece zirconia implants restored with single crowns (SCs) or fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) over an observation period of 5 years in function.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a prospective cohort investigation with two investigational centers, one-piece zirconia implants were placed in anterior and posterior sites. After a healing period of at least 2 months in the mandible and 4 months in the maxilla with immediate provisional reconstructions, the final all-ceramic SCs or three-unit FDPs were cemented. Patients were followed for 5 years. Clinical parameters and radiological measurements of the implants and the neighboring teeth were assessed. For the statistical analysis, linear mixed models were applied.

RESULTS

A total of 71 implants were placed in 60 patients. Sixty-three implants in 53 patients could be evaluated at the 5-year follow-up. Six patients with a total of seven implants were counted as dropouts. One implant did not achieve adequate osseointegration and had to be removed 5 weeks after implantation. The 5-year survival rate was calculated as 98.4% (95% CI 91.6, 99.9). The mean overall marginal bone loss from implant placement to the 5-year follow-up was 0.7 ± 0.6 mm. After an initial mean marginal loss before loading the implants (0.7 mm), no further statistically significant change in marginal bone level (p = .458) could be observed.

CONCLUSION

The investigated one-piece zirconia implant showed a high survival rate, very stable marginal bone, and mucosal margin levels after 5 years in function. Therefore, it can be considered safe and reliable for the reconstruction of implant-supported SCs or FDPs over a mid-term period.