MONOLİTİK ZİRKONYA SERAMİK SİSTEMİ KULLANILARAK MİNİMAL İNVAZİV TEDAVİ YAKLAŞIMI: BİR OLGU NEDENİYLE

Year 2018, Volume: 28 Issue: 1, 71 - 75, 28.03.2018

Rukiye Durkan , Gonca Deste Hatice Şimşek

https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.410408

Abstract

 

Tek diş
eksikliğinin restorasyonunda, geleneksel sabit bölümlü protezler veya implant
destekli kronlar sıklıkla uygulanan tedavi yöntemleridir. Diğer bir seçenek
olan inley bağlantılı adeziv restorasyonlar, implant endikasyonunun bulunmadığı
vakalarda tercih edilebilecek koruyucu bir tedavi seçeneğidir. Bilgisayar
destekli tasarım ve bilgisayar destekli üretim teknolojisinin ilerlemesi ve buna
bağlı olarak kullanılan farklı materyallerin üretilmesi ile yüksek estetik ve
mekanik özelliklere sahip protezler yapılmaktadır. Bu vaka raporunda posterior
tek diş eksikliğinin, monolitik zirkonya seramik sisteminin kullanıldığı inley
bağlantılı sabit bölümlü protez ile restorasyonu anlatılmaktadır.

Anahtar kelimeler: İnley bağlantılı protez, monolitik zirkonya, CAD-CAM

MONOLITIC ZIRCONIA CERAMIC INLAY RETAINED BRIDGE RESTORATION FOR
MINIMALLY INVASIVE REHABILITATION: A CASE ABSTRACT

Conventional fixed partial denture and implant supported crowns
are commonly used treatment methods for restoration of single missing tooth.
İnlay retained adhesive restorations, which is another treatment method, are
conservative treatment choice that may be preferred in such cases without any
implant indications. With the progress of computer-aided design and
computer-assisted manufacturing technology and ceramic materials produced
accordingly, prostheses are produced with high aesthetic and mechanical
properties. In this case report, restoration of single missing posterior tooth
by using inlay retained fixed partial denture which uses monolithic zirconia
ceramic system has been mentioned.

Keywords: Inley retained prothesis, monolithic zirconia, CAD-CAM

Keywords

İnley bağlantılı protez, monolitik zirkonya

References

• 1. Tan K, Pjetursson BE, Lang NP, Chan ES. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004; 15: 654-66.
• 2. Bergenholtz G, Nyman S. Endodontic complications following periodontal and prosthetic treatment of patients with advanced peridontal disease. J Periodontol 1984; 55: 63-8.
• 3. Edelhoff D, Spiekermann H, Yildirim M. Metal-free inlay- retained fixed partial dentures. Quintessence Int 2001; 32: 269-81.
• 4. Sailer I, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Hämmerle CH. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of all-ceramic and metal ceramic reconstructions after an observation period of at least 3 years. Part II: Fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007; 18: 86-96.
• 5. Monaco C, Cardelli P, Bolognesi M, Scotti R, Ozcan M. Inlay-retained zirconia fixed dental prosthesis: clinical and laboratory procedures. Eur J Esthet Dent 2012; 7: 48-60.
• 6. Augusti D, Augusti G, Borgonovo A, Amato M, Re D. Inlay-retained fixed dental prosthesis: a clinical option using monolithic zirconia. Case Rep Dent 2014; 2014: 10.1155/ 629786.
• 7. Edelhoff D, Sorensen JA. Tooth structure removal associated with various preparation designs for anterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 87: 503-9.
• 8. Moslehifard E, FARID F. Single tooth replacement using InCeram resin bonded fixed partial denture: A clinical report. J Dent 2014; 11: 106-10.
• 9. Zhang F, Vanmeensel K, Batuk M, Hadermann J, Inokoshi M, Van Meerbeek B, Naert I, Vleugels J. Highly-translucent, strong and aging-resistant 3Y-TZP ceramics for dental restoration by grain boundary segregation. Acta Biomater 2015; 16: 215-22.
• 10. Harianawala HH, Kheur MG, Apte SK, Kale BB, Sethi TS, Kheur SM. Comparative analysis of transmittance for different types of commercially available zirconia and lithium disilicate materials. J Adv Prosthodont 2014; 6: 456-61.
• 11. Herrguth M, Wichmann M, Reich S. The aesthetics of all-ceramic veneered and monolithic CAD/CAM crowns. J Oral Rehabil 2005; 32: 747-52.
• 12. Chang JS, Ji W, Choi CH, Kim S. Catastrophic failure of a monolithic zirconia prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 2015; 113: 86-90.
• 13. Nakamura K, Harada A, Inagaki R, Kanno T, Niwano Y, Milleding P, Örtengren U. Fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia molar crowns with reduced thickness. Acta Odontol Scand 2015; 73: 602-8.
• 14. Sailer I, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Hämmerle CH. A systematic review of the survival and compli- cation rates of all-ceramic and metal ceramic reconstructions afteran observation period of at least 3 years. Part II: Fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007; 18: 86-96.
• 15. Nordahl N, Vult von Steyern P, Larsson C. Fracture strength of ceramic monolithic crown systems of different thickness. J Oral Sci 2015; 57: 255-61.
• 16. Kiliçarslan MA, Kedici PS, Küçükeşmen HC, Uludağ BC. In vitro fracture resistance of posterior metal-ceramic and all-ceramic inlay-retained resin-bonded fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 92: 365-70.
• 17. Samran A, Nassani MZ, Aswad M, Abdulkarim A. A modified design for posterior inlay-retained fixed dental prosthesis. Case Rep Dent 2015; 2015: 576820/10.1155.
• 18. Harder S, Wolfart S, Eschbach S, Kern M. Eight-year outcome of posterior inlay-retained all ceramic fixed dental prostheses. J Dent 2010; 38: 875-81.
• 19. Abou Tara M, Eschbach S, Wolfart S, Kern M. Zirconia ceramic inlay-retained fixed dental prostheses - first clinical results with a new design. J Dent 2011; 39: 208-11.
• 20. Hamza TA, Attia MA, El-Hossary MM, Mosleh IE, Shokry TE, Wee AG. Flexural strength of small connector designs of zirconia-based partial fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 115: 224-9.
• 21. Inokoshi M, Poitevin A, Munck JD, Minakuchi S, Meerbeek BV. Bonding effectiveness to different chemically pre-treated dental zirconia. Clin Oral Invest 2014; 18: 1803-12.
• 22. Çelik M, Bural C, Bayraktar G. Application of zirconia in dentistry. J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni Supplement 2014; 8: 106-116.
• 23. Tzanakakis EG, Tzoutzas IG, Koidis PT. Is there a potential for durable adhesion to zirconia restorations? A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 115: 9-19.
• 24. Thompson JY, Stonerb BR, Piascikb JR, Smith R. Adhesion/cementation to zirconia and other non-silicate ceramics: Where are we now? Dent Mater 2011; 27: 71-82.
• 25. Zandparsa R, Talua NA, Finkelman MD, Schaus SE. An in vitro comparison of shear bond strength of zirkonia to enamel using different surface treatments. J Prosthodont 2014; 23: 117-123.