Cargando…

Survival and Success Rates of Monolithic Zirconia Restorations Supported by Teeth and Implants in Bruxer versus Non-Bruxer Patients: A Retrospective Study

The aim of this study was to assess retrospectively the survival and success rates of monolithic zirconia restorations supported by teeth and implants in bruxer versus non-bruxer patients. Methods: A total of 15 bruxer and 25 non-bruxer patients attended the recall appointment. The bruxer group (mea...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Heller, Hadas, Sreter, David, Arieli, Adi, Beitlitum, Ilan, Pilo, Raphael, Levartovsky, Shifra
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8836879/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35160777
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15030833
_version_ 1784649786181287936
author Heller, Hadas
Sreter, David
Arieli, Adi
Beitlitum, Ilan
Pilo, Raphael
Levartovsky, Shifra
author_facet Heller, Hadas
Sreter, David
Arieli, Adi
Beitlitum, Ilan
Pilo, Raphael
Levartovsky, Shifra
author_sort Heller, Hadas
collection PubMed
description The aim of this study was to assess retrospectively the survival and success rates of monolithic zirconia restorations supported by teeth and implants in bruxer versus non-bruxer patients. Methods: A total of 15 bruxer and 25 non-bruxer patients attended the recall appointment. The bruxer group (mean age of 61.2 ± 13.3 years and follow-up of 58.7 ± 16.8 months) were treated with 331 monolithic zirconia restorations, while the non-bruxer group, with a comparable mean age and follow-up time, were treated with 306 monolithic zirconia restorations. Clinical data were retrieved from the patients’ files. At the recall appointment, all supporting teeth and implants were examined for biological and technical complications, and the restorations were evaluated using modified California Dental Association (CDA) criteria. Data were statistically analyzed using survival analysis methods. A significance level of p < 0.05 was used. A total of 31 versus 27 biologic and technical complications were recorded in the bruxer and non-bruxer groups, respectively. No significant differences were found between the two groups regarding overall complications and survival rate. Regarding the type of complication, a significantly higher rate of veneered porcelain chipping (p = 0.045) was observed in the bruxer group. With regard to biological complications, the only complications that exhibited a borderline, although not significant, difference were three fractured teeth exclusively in the bruxer group (p = 0.051), which were replaced with implant-supported restorations. Within the limitations of this study, we conclude that there were no significant differences in the overall survival and success rates of the monolithic zirconia restorations in bruxer versus non-bruxer patients, although veneered zirconia restorations and single tooth abutments exhibited a higher rate of complications in the bruxer group.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8836879
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88368792022-02-12 Survival and Success Rates of Monolithic Zirconia Restorations Supported by Teeth and Implants in Bruxer versus Non-Bruxer Patients: A Retrospective Study Heller, Hadas Sreter, David Arieli, Adi Beitlitum, Ilan Pilo, Raphael Levartovsky, Shifra Materials (Basel) Article The aim of this study was to assess retrospectively the survival and success rates of monolithic zirconia restorations supported by teeth and implants in bruxer versus non-bruxer patients. Methods: A total of 15 bruxer and 25 non-bruxer patients attended the recall appointment. The bruxer group (mean age of 61.2 ± 13.3 years and follow-up of 58.7 ± 16.8 months) were treated with 331 monolithic zirconia restorations, while the non-bruxer group, with a comparable mean age and follow-up time, were treated with 306 monolithic zirconia restorations. Clinical data were retrieved from the patients’ files. At the recall appointment, all supporting teeth and implants were examined for biological and technical complications, and the restorations were evaluated using modified California Dental Association (CDA) criteria. Data were statistically analyzed using survival analysis methods. A significance level of p < 0.05 was used. A total of 31 versus 27 biologic and technical complications were recorded in the bruxer and non-bruxer groups, respectively. No significant differences were found between the two groups regarding overall complications and survival rate. Regarding the type of complication, a significantly higher rate of veneered porcelain chipping (p = 0.045) was observed in the bruxer group. With regard to biological complications, the only complications that exhibited a borderline, although not significant, difference were three fractured teeth exclusively in the bruxer group (p = 0.051), which were replaced with implant-supported restorations. Within the limitations of this study, we conclude that there were no significant differences in the overall survival and success rates of the monolithic zirconia restorations in bruxer versus non-bruxer patients, although veneered zirconia restorations and single tooth abutments exhibited a higher rate of complications in the bruxer group. MDPI 2022-01-22 /pmc/articles/PMC8836879/ /pubmed/35160777 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15030833 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Heller, Hadas
Sreter, David
Arieli, Adi
Beitlitum, Ilan
Pilo, Raphael
Levartovsky, Shifra
Survival and Success Rates of Monolithic Zirconia Restorations Supported by Teeth and Implants in Bruxer versus Non-Bruxer Patients: A Retrospective Study
title Survival and Success Rates of Monolithic Zirconia Restorations Supported by Teeth and Implants in Bruxer versus Non-Bruxer Patients: A Retrospective Study
title_full Survival and Success Rates of Monolithic Zirconia Restorations Supported by Teeth and Implants in Bruxer versus Non-Bruxer Patients: A Retrospective Study
title_fullStr Survival and Success Rates of Monolithic Zirconia Restorations Supported by Teeth and Implants in Bruxer versus Non-Bruxer Patients: A Retrospective Study
title_full_unstemmed Survival and Success Rates of Monolithic Zirconia Restorations Supported by Teeth and Implants in Bruxer versus Non-Bruxer Patients: A Retrospective Study
title_short Survival and Success Rates of Monolithic Zirconia Restorations Supported by Teeth and Implants in Bruxer versus Non-Bruxer Patients: A Retrospective Study
title_sort survival and success rates of monolithic zirconia restorations supported by teeth and implants in bruxer versus non-bruxer patients: a retrospective study
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8836879/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35160777
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15030833
work_keys_str_mv AT hellerhadas survivalandsuccessratesofmonolithiczirconiarestorationssupportedbyteethandimplantsinbruxerversusnonbruxerpatientsaretrospectivestudy
AT sreterdavid survivalandsuccessratesofmonolithiczirconiarestorationssupportedbyteethandimplantsinbruxerversusnonbruxerpatientsaretrospectivestudy
AT arieliadi survivalandsuccessratesofmonolithiczirconiarestorationssupportedbyteethandimplantsinbruxerversusnonbruxerpatientsaretrospectivestudy
AT beitlitumilan survivalandsuccessratesofmonolithiczirconiarestorationssupportedbyteethandimplantsinbruxerversusnonbruxerpatientsaretrospectivestudy
AT piloraphael survivalandsuccessratesofmonolithiczirconiarestorationssupportedbyteethandimplantsinbruxerversusnonbruxerpatientsaretrospectivestudy
AT levartovskyshifra survivalandsuccessratesofmonolithiczirconiarestorationssupportedbyteethandimplantsinbruxerversusnonbruxerpatientsaretrospectivestudy