Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Full‐arch implant‐supported rehabilitations: A prospective study comparing porcelain‐veneered zirconia frameworks to monolithic zirconia

2018; Wiley; Volume: 30; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1111/clr.13393

1600-0501

João Caramês, Duarte Marques, João Malta Barbosa, André Moreira, Pedro Crispim, André Chen,

Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

Abstract Objectives To evaluate the performance of two types of zirconia frameworks. Material and Methods From 2014 to 2016, in a prospective clinical trial, 150 patients were rehabilitated with 83 and 110 implant‐supported, screw‐retained, full‐arch ceramic‐veneered zirconia (PVZ) rehabilitations and monolithic zirconia with porcelain veneering limited to buccal (MZ) rehabilitations, respectively. Patients were consecutively enlisted according to pre‐defined inclusion criteria and evaluated on 4 months intervals. A Kaplan–Meier estimator was adopted, and the log‐rank test and Wilcoxon test used to test differences in survival and successful function in the two different groups. Results The average follow‐up time (± SD ) and implant success rate was 608.80 ± 172.52 days with 99.53% implant success for the PVZ group and 552.63 ± 197.57 days with 99.83% success for the MZ group. According to the Kaplan–Meier estimator, the mean cumulative survival rate at the 2‐year follow‐up for framework fracture, major chipping, minor chipping, or any of the former combined to occur was 0.99, 0.95, 0.93 and 0.85 for the PVZ group ( n = 18) and 0.99, 0.95, 0.95 and 0.89 for the MZ group ( n = 15). No significant differences were found between the two groups. Conclusions Results suggest zirconia as a suitable material for frameworks in full‐arch implant‐supported rehabilitations. Both groups presented a low incidence of technical complications. When comparing the two different designs, the MZ group presented a lower technical complication rate, thus presenting itself as a viable alternative for full‐arch implant‐supported rehabilitations. Further clinical studies with longer follow‐ups (5 years) should be performed to evaluate the long‐term stability of such rehabilitations.