TAM-ARK İMPLANT-DESTEKLİ MONOLİTİK ZİRKONYA SABİT DENTAL PROTEZLER: LİTERATÜR DERLEMESİ

Year 2019, Volume: 29 Issue: 1, 160 - 167, 15.01.2019

Rukiye Durkan Gonca Deste Perihan Oyar

https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.523106

Abstract

Tam dişsizlik vakalarında implant destekli
monolitik zirkonya sabit dental protezlerin yapımları giderek artmaktadır.
Hekim-hasta bakış açısıyla ve teknik ba- kımlardan yüksek kalitede
restorasyonlar elde edildiği gözlenmektedir. Son teknoloji ürünü bilgisayar des-
tekli tasarım ve bilgisayar destekli üretim (BDT/BDÜ) (computer aided design/
computer assisted manufacture-CAD/CAM) ile elde edilen implant üstü monolitik
zirkonya restorasyonlarda estetik ve yüksek dayanıklılık özellikleri birlikte
sunulmaktadır.

Bu derlemede, öncelikle tam-ark
implant-destekli sabit protez tipleri ile ilgili genel bir değerlendirme
yapıldı. Takiben komple-ark implant-destekli monolitik sabit dental protezlerin
(complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses) uygulamalarına
yönelik olan çalışmaların ışığı altında, avantaj ve dezavantajları değerlendirildi. Sonuç olarak, tam ark implant
destekli monolitik zirkonya sabit protezlerle ilgili olarak yapılan klinik
çalışmaların kısa dönem (5-10 yıl arası) başarı oranının çok yüksek olduğu
ancak uzun dönem (10 yıldan fazla) sonuçlarının yeterli olmadığı, klinik perfor-
manslarının henüz tam olarak netlik kazanmadığı, bu yönde daha fazla çalışma
yapılması gerekliliği tespit edildi.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Monolitik
zirkonya seramik sistemleri, tam ark implant destekli sabit protezler, zirkonya

 

COMPLETE-ARCH IMPLANT-SUPPORTED MONOLITHİC ZIRCONIA
FIXED DENTAL PROSTHESES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

ABSTRACT

 

Fixed dental prostheses are produced from
gradational in edentulous patient cases, it is observed that implant supported
monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses constructions are ever increased.
High quality restorations are achieved in the aspect of clinician-patient and
technical maintenance. Especially, high durability and aesthetic properties are
presented together in monolithic implant restorations produced with the latest
technology computer aided design/ computer assisted manufactured (CAD/CAM).

In this review, primarily an assessment made
about complete arch implant supported fixed prostheses types. Then, the
advantage and disadvantages were summarized in the lights of the studies of
complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. Consequently, it was
determined that success rate were very high in short term clinical studies
about complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (5-10 years).
However, long term (more than 10 years) study results were limited, to bring a
conclusion and clinical performances are not yet fully clear. Thus, it is
necessary to carry out further studies and wait the long term prognosis of this
type of restorations in long term studies.

Keywords:
Monolithic zirconia ceramic systems,
full arch implant supported fixed prostheses, zirconia

 

Keywords

Monolitik zirkonya seramik sistemleri, tam ark implant destekli sabit protezler

References

• 1. Tulunoğlu İF. Günümüz Dişhekimliğinde İmplantoloji .Üçüncü baskı, Ankara 2011, s. 615.
• 2. Sadid-Zadeh R, Liu PR, Aponte-Wesson R, O'Neal SJ. Maxillary cement retained implant supported monolithic zirconia prosthesis in a full mouth rehabilitation: a clinical report. J Adv Prosthodont 2013;5:209-17.
• 3. Larsson C, von Steyern PV. Implant-supported fullarch zirconia-based mandibular fixed dental prostheses. Eightyear results from a clinical pilot study. Acta Odontol Scand 2013;71:1118–22.
• 4. Papaspyridakos P, Lal K. Computer-assisted design/computerassisted manufacturing zirconia implant fixed complete prostheses: clinical results and technical complications up to 4 years of function. Clin Oral Impl Res 2013; 24: 659–65.
• 5. Thalji GN, Cooper LF. Implant-supported fixed dental rehabilitation with monolithic zirconia: A clinical case report. J Esthet Restor Dent 2014;26:88–96.
• 6. Limmer B, Sanders AE, Reside G, Cooper LF. complications and patient-centered outcomes with an ımplant-supported monolithic zirconia fixed dental prosthesis: 1 year results. J Prosthod 2014; 23: 267–75.
• 7. Abdulmajeed AA, Lim KG, Närhi TO, Cooper LF. Complete-arch implant-supported monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:672-7.
• 8. Rojas-Vizcaya. Full zirconia fixed detachable implant-retained restorations manufactured from monolithic zirconia: clinical report after two years in service. J Prosthodont 2011;20:570-6.
• 9. Guess PC, Att W, Strub JR. Zirconia in fixed implant prosthodontics. Clin Implant Dent Related Res 2012;14:633–45.
• 10. Kanat B, Cömlekoğlu EM, Dündar-Çömlekoğlu M, Hakan Sen B, Ozcan M, Ali Güngör M. Effect of various veneering techniques on mechanical strength of computer-controlled zirconia frame- work designs. J Prosthodont 2014;23:445-55.
• 11. Balshi TJ, Wolfinger GJ, Slauch RW, Balshi SF. A retrospective analysis of 800 Brånemark System implants following the all-on-four protocol. J Prosthodont 2014;23:83–8.
• 12. Altarawneh S, Limmer B, Reside GJ, Cooper L. Dual jaw treatment of edentulism using implant-supported monolithic zirconia fixed prostheses. J Esthet Restor Dent 2015;27:63–70.
• 13. Rohlin M, Nilner K, Davidson T, Gynther G, Hultin M, Jemt T, Lekholm U, Nordenram G, Norlund A, Sunnegardh-Gronberg K, Tranaeus S. Treatment of adult patients with edentulous arches: a systematic review. Int J Prosthodont 2012;25:553–67.
• 14. Patzelt SB, Spies BC, Kohal RJ. CAD/CAM-fabricated implant-supported restorations: a systematic review.Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:77-85.
• 15. Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls HR. Phillips’ science of dental materials. 12th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2013, p. 291-451.
• 16. Mehra M, Vahidi F. Complete mouth implant rehabilitation with a zirconia ceramic system: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:1-4.
• 17. Mertens C, Steveling HG. Implant-supported fixed prostheses in the edentulous maxilla: 8-year prospective results. Clin Oral Impl Res 2011; 22:464–72.
• 18. Wittneben JG, Millen C, Brägger U. Clinical performance of screw- versus cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions-a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:84-98.
• 19. Leempoel PJ, Van Rossum GM, de Hann AF. Survival studies of dental restorations: criteria, methods and analyses. J Oral Rehabil 1989;16:387-94.
• 20. Alani A, Maglad A, Nohl F. The prosthetic management of gingival aesthetics. Br Dent J 2011;210:63–9.
• 21. Linkevicius T, Vladimirovas E, Grybauskas S, Puisys A, Rutkunas V. Veneer fracture in implant-supported metal-ceramic restorations. Part I: Overall success rate and impact of occlusal guidance. Stomatologija 2008;10:133–9.
• 22. Roberts DH. The failure of retainers in bridge prostheses. An analysis of 2,000 retainers. Br Dent J 1970;128:117–24.
• 23. Jacobi R, Shillingburg HT Jr, Duncanson MG Jr. Effect of abutment mobility, site, and angle of impact on retention of fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1985;54:178–83.
• 24. Ehrenkranz H, Langer B, Marotta L. Complete-arch maxillary rehabilitation using a custom-designed and manufactured titanium framework: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99:8–13.
• 25. Llobell A, Nicholls JI, Kois JC, Daly CH. Fatigue life of porcelain repair systems. Int J Prosthodont 1992;5:205–13.
• 26. Reuter JE, Brose MO. Failures in full crown retained dental bridges. Br Dent J 1984;157:61–3.
• 27. Priest G, Smith J, Wilson MG. Implant survival and prosthetic complications of mandibular metal-acrylic resin implant complete fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2014;1:466-75.
• 28. Cox JF, Zarb GA. The longitudinal clinical efficay of osseointegrated dental implants: a 3-year report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1987;2:91-100.
• 29. Gallucci GO, Doughtie CB, Hwang JW, Fiorellini JP, Weber HP. Five-year results of fixed implantsupported rehabilitations with distal cantilevers for the edentulous mandible. Clin Oral Impl. Res 2009;20:601–7.
• 30. Kwon T, Bain PA, Levin L. Systematic review of short- (5-10 years) and longterm (10 years or more) survival and success of full-arch fixed dental hybrid prostheses and supporting implants. J Dent 2014;42:1228-41.
• 31. Real-Osuna J, Almendros-Marques N, Gay-Escoda C. Prevalence of complications after the oral rehabilitation with implant-supported hybrid prostheses. Medicina Oral 2012:116–21.
• 32. Branemark PI, Svensson B, van Steenberghe D. Ten-year survival rates of fixed prostheses on four or six implants ad modum Branemark in full edentulism. Clin Oral Implants Res 1995;6:227–31.
• 33. Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Chuang SK, Weber HP, Gallucci GO. A systematic review of biologic and technical complications with fixed implant rehabilitations for edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:102-10.
• 34. Purcell BA, McGlumphy EA, Holloway JA, Beck FM. Prosthetic complications in mandibular metal-resin implant-fixed complete dental prostheses: a 5- to 9-year analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:847-57.
• 35. Bozini T, Petridis H, Garefis K, Garefis P. A meta-analysis of prosthodontic complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses in edentulous patients after an observation period of at least 5 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:304-18.
• 36. Afrashtehfar KI. The all-on-four concept may be a viable treatment option for edentulous rehabilitation. Evid Based Dent 2016;17:56-7.
• 37. Jemt T. Failures and complications in 391 consecutively inserted fixed prostheses supported by Brånemark implants in edentulous jaws: a study of treatment from the time of prosthesis placement to the first annual checkup. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6:270–6.
• 38. Ortorp A, Jemt T. Clinical experiences of CNC-milled titanium frameworks supported by implants in the edentulous jaw: 1-year prospective study. Clin Imp Dent Rel Res 2000;2:2–9.
• 39. Carames J, Suinaga LT, Yu YC, Pérez A, Kang M. Clinical advantages and limitations of monolithic zirconia restorations full arch ımplant supported reconstruction: Case Series Int J Dent 2015; 2015: 392496
• 40. Fischer K, T Stenberg. Prospective 10-year cohort study based on a randomized, controlled trial (RCT) on implant-supported full-arch maxillary prostheses. Part II: prosthetic outcomes and maintenance. Clin Implant Dent Related Res 2013;15:498–508.
• 41. Bergendal B, Palmqvist S. Laser-welded titanium frameworks for implant-supported fixed prostheses: a 5-year report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:69–71.
• 42. Ghazal M, Hedderich J, Kern M. Wear of feldspathic ceramic, nano-filled composite resin and acrylic resin artificial teeth when opposed to different antagonists. Eur J Oral Sci 2008;116:585–92.
• 43. Coachman C, Salama M, Garber D, Calamita M, Salama H, Cabral G. Prosthetic gingival reconstruction in fixed partial restorations. Part 3: laboratory procedures and maintenance. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2010;30:19-29.
• 44. Koizuka M, Komine F, Blatz MB, Fushiki R, Taguchi K, H Matsumura The effect of different surface treatments on the bond strength of a gingiva-colored indirect composite veneering material to three implant framework materials Clin Oral Impl Res 2013;24:977–84.
• 45. Al-Amleh B, Lyons K, Swain M. Clinical trials in zirconia: a systematic review. J Oral Rehabil 2010;37:641–52.
• 46. Karaalioğlu OF, Duymuş Z Y. Diş hekimliğinde uygulanan CAD/CAM sistemleri. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg 2008;18:25-32.
• 47. Raigrodski AJ, Chiche GJ, Potiket N, Hochstedler JL, Mohamed SE, Billiot S. The efficacy of posterior three-unit zirconium-oxide-based ceramic fixed partial dental prostheses: a prospective clinical pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2006;96:237-44.
• 48. Sailer I, Feher A, Filser F, Gauckler LJ, Lüthy H, Hämmerle CH. Five-year clinical results of zirconia frameworks for posterior fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont 2007;20:383-8.
• 49. Stefan H, Michael B, Enrico S, Markus BB, Manfred W. The application of zirconium oxide frameworks for ımplant superstructures. Quintessence Dent Tech 2006;29:103–12.
• 50. Bayramoğlu E, Özkan Y. Cam seramik restorasyonlar ve zirkonya alt yapılı seramik restorasyonların karşılaştırılması. Atatürk Üniv. Diş Hek. Fak. Derg. 2012;6:110-23.
• 51. Ueda K, Güth JF, Erdelt K, Stimmelmayr M, Kappert H, Beuer F. Light transmittance by a multi-coloured zirconia material. Dent Mater J 2015;34:310-4.
• 52. 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.
• 53. Sulaiman TA, Abdulmajeed AA, Donovan TE, Ritter AV, Vallittu PK, Närhi TO, Lassila LV. Optical properties and light irradiance of monolithic zirconia at variable thicknesses. Dent Mater 2015;31:1180-7.
• 54. Sulaiman TA, Abdulmajeed AA, Donovan TE, Cooper LF, Walter R. Fracture rate of monolithic zirconia restorations up to 5 years: A dental laboratory survey. J Prosthet Dent 2016:10.1016.
• 55. Inokoshi M, De Munck J, Minakuchi S, Van Meerbeek B. Meta-analysis of bonding effectiveness to zirconia ceramics. J Dent Res 2014;93:329-34.
• 56. Tinschert J, Natt G, Mohrbotter N, Spiekermann H, Schulze KA. Lifetime of alumina-and zirconia ceramics used for crown and bridge restorations. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2007;80:317-21.
• 57. Schärer P. All-ceramic crown systems: clinical research versus observation in supporting claims. Signature 1997;4:1.
• 58. Tiu J, Al-Amleh B, Waddell JN, Duncan WJ. Clinical tooth preparations and associated measuring methods: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2015;113:175-84.
• 59. Chang JS, Ji W, Choi CH, Kim S. Catastrophic failure of a monolithic zirconia prosthesis: Clinical Report. J Prosthet Dent 2015;113:86-90.
• 60. Ronald LS, John MP. In: Evolve resources for Craig's restorative dental materials. 12th ed. Mosby: 2006.
• 61. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater 1997;13:258–69.
• 62. Preis V, Behr M, Handel G, Schneider-Feyrer S, Hahnel S, Rosentritt M. Wear performance of dental ceramics after grinding and polishing treatments. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2012;10:13–22
• 63. Denry I, Kelly JR. State of the art of zirconia for dental applications. Dent Mater 2008;24:299–307.
• 64. Venezia P, Torsello F, Cavalcanti R, D’Amato S. Retrospective analysis of 26 complete-arch implant-supported monolithic zirconia prostheses with feldspathic porcelain veneering limited to the facial surface. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:506-12
• 65. Ishibe M, Raigrodski AJ, Flinn BD, Chung KH, Spiekerman C, Winter RR. Shear bond strengths of pressed and layered veneering ceramics to high-noble alloy and zirconia cores. J Prosthet Dent 2011;106:29-37.
• 66. Rosentritt M, Preis V, Behr M, Hahnel S, Handel G, Kolbeck C. Two-body wear of dental porcelain and substructure oxide ceramics. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16: 935-43.
• 67. Sherif S, Susarla HK, Kapos T, Munoz D, Chang BM, Wright RF. A systematic review of screw-versus cement-retained implant-supported fixed restorations. J Prosthodont 2014;23:1-9.
• 68. Ilie N, Stawarczyk B. Quantification of the amount of blue light passing through monolithic zirconia with respect to thickness and polymerization conditions. J Prosthet Dent 2015;113:114-21.
• 69. Cheng CW, Chien CH, CJ Chen, Papaspyridakos P. Complete-mouth implant rehabilitation with modified monolithic zirconia implant-supported fixed dental prostheses and an immediate-loading protocol: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:347-35.