Premium
Prosthetic outcomes and clinical performance of CAD‐CAM monolithic zirconia versus porcelain‐fused‐to‐metal implant crowns in the molar region: 1‐year results of a RCT
Author(s) -
Mühlemann Sven,
Lakha Tabrez,
Jung Ronald E.,
Hämmerle Christoph H. F.,
Benic Goran I.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/clr.13631
Subject(s) - crown (dentistry) , dentistry , implant , medicine , statistical significance , molar , cubic zirconia , statistical analysis , wilcoxon signed rank test , exact test , orthodontics , materials science , mann–whitney u test , ceramic , mathematics , surgery , composite material , statistics
Objective To investigate the clinical performance of monolithic zirconia implant crowns as compared to porcelain‐fused‐to‐metal (PFM) implant crowns. Materials and methods Seventy‐six healthy patients received reduced diameter implants in the molar region. Following random allocation, either a monolithic zirconia crown (Mono‐ZrO 2 ) or a (PFM) was inserted. Crown and implant survival rates, modified USPHS criteria, clinical measurements, and interproximal marginal bone level (MBL) were assessed at crown delivery (baseline, BL) and at the 1‐year follow‐up (1y‐FU). Data were analyzed descriptively. Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon rank sum test were applied for statistical analysis. The level of statistical significance was set at p < .05. Results Thirty‐nine Mono‐ZrO 2 and 37 PFM crowns were delivered. At the 1y‐FU, one crown in each group was lost due to loss of the implant. Technical complications occurred in the PFM group and were limited to four minor ceramic chippings resulting in a total technical complication rate of 11.1% ( p = .024). Anatomical form and color match compared to the adjacent dentition were rated significantly inferior for the Mono‐ZrO 2 crowns. Patient satisfaction was high in both groups at BL (34 Mono‐ZrO 2 34 PFM) and at 1y‐FU (36 Mono‐ZrO 2 31 PFM). No significant differences between the groups were detected with respect to the change in MBL and to the soft tissue parameters. Conclusions Monolithic zirconia crowns are a similarly successful alternative option to PFM crowns for restoring single implants in the posterior area.