Cargando…

Prospective evaluation of implants‐supported, tooth‐implant supported, and teeth‐supported 3‐unit posterior monolithic zirconia fixed restorations: Bite force and patient satisfaction

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the maximum bite force (MBF) and satisfaction of patients restored with implants, combined tooth‐implants, and teeth‐supported monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty partially edentulous patients in need of three uni...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Altayyar, Sadeq, Al‐zordk, Walid, Algabri, Radwan, Rajah, Eshraq, Al‐baadani, Abdulsattar, Alqutaibi, Ahmed Yaseen, Madina, Manal Abo, Ghazy, Mohammed H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10582233/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37703213
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cre2.780
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the maximum bite force (MBF) and satisfaction of patients restored with implants, combined tooth‐implants, and teeth‐supported monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty partially edentulous patients in need of three units of FDPs in their mandibular posterior region were divided into three equal groups (n = 10) as follows: Group‐1 patients received two implants for each at the second premolar and second molar regions, Group‐2 patients received one implant for each at the second molar region, and Group‐3 patients with missing lower first molar. All the restorations were constructed from monolithic zirconia. Patients were evaluated 1 week after placement of restorations (baseline) and then after 6, 12, and 24‐month intervals for MBF using force transducer occlusal force meter and satisfaction (function, esthetic, and overall satisfaction) using a visual analog scale. RESULTS: The mean MBF for Group 1 was higher than Group 2 (p = .044) but not that of Group 3 (p = .923). Additionally, Group 3 displayed a higher MBF than Group 2, although this difference was not statistically significant (p = .096). Concerning patient satisfaction, all study groups reported high levels of satisfaction across all satisfaction elements, and no significant differences were observed between the groups. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that Group 1 gives comparable anticipated treatment outcomes as Group 3 concerning biting force and patient satisfaction. However, Group 2 gives comparable satisfaction results with biting force value within the normal range; thus, it might be used as a treatment option in a specific situation.