			Home About us Contact

Fixed Dental Prostheses (fixed + dental_prosthesis)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	100%

Selected Abstracts

Survival probability of zirconia-based fixed dental prostheses up to 5 yr: a systematic review of the literature

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORAL SCIENCES, Issue 5 2010
Jaana-Sophia Schley
Schley J-S, Heussen N, Reich S, Fischer J, Haselhuhn K, Wolfart S. Survival probability of zirconia-based fixed dental prostheses up to 5 yr: a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Oral Sci 2010; 118: 443,450. © 2010 Eur J Oral Sci The purpose of this systematic review was to calculate the 5-yr survival rates of all-ceramic zirconia-based fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and to analyze technical and biological complications. An electronic literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed) was conducted independently by three reviewers to identify clinical studies from 1999 to 2009 and was completed by a manual search. Keywords and inclusion and exclusion criteria were well-defined. The search revealed 399 titles and led to the final analysis of 18 full-text articles. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Extracted data were statistically calculated into 5-yr survival rates and 5-yr complication-free rates by using Poisson regression analysis. In total, 310, 3- to 4-unit FDPs and 20 FDPs with more than 4 units were included. The estimated 5-yr survival rate for all FDPs was 94.29% (95% CI: 58.98,99.32); 19 FDPs were lost as a result of catastrophic failures. The 5-yr complication-free rate regarding technical complications was 76.41% (95% CI: 42.42,91.60) with chipping being the most frequent complication. Regarding biological complications, the 5-yr complication-free rate was 91.72% (95% CI: 59.19,98.53). The survival rates of zirconia-based short-unit FDPs are promising. However, an important improvement of the veneering systems is required, and for FDPs with more units in function, further randomized, controlled clinical trials are necessary. [source]

A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extensions after an observation period of at least 5 years

CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, Issue 5 2009
Marco Aglietta
Abstract Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the survival rates of short-span implant-supported cantilever fixed dental prostheses (ICFDPs) and the incidence of technical and biological complications after an observation period of at least 5 years. Material and methods: An electronic MEDLINE search supplemented by manual searching was conducted to identify prospective or retrospective cohort studies reporting data of at least 5 years on ICFDPs. Five- and 10-year estimates for failure and complication rates were calculated using standard or random-effect Poisson regression analysis. Results: The five studies eligible for the meta-analysis yielded an estimated 5- and 10-year ICFDP cumulative survival rate of 94.3% [95 percent confidence interval (95% CI): 84.1,98%] and 88.9% (95% CI: 70.8,96.1%), respectively. Five-year estimates for peri-implantitis were 5.4% (95% CI: 2,14.2%) and 9.4% (95% CI: 3.3,25.4%) at implant and prosthesis levels, respectively. Veneer fracture (5-year estimate: 10.3%; 95% CI: 3.9,26.6%) and screw loosening (5-year estimate: 8.2%; 95% CI: 3.9,17%) represented the most common complications, followed by loss of retention (5-year estimate: 5.7%; 95% CI: 1.9,16.5%) and abutment/screw fracture (5-year estimate: 2.1%; 95% CI: 0.9,5.1%). Implant fracture was rare (5-year estimate: 1.3%; 95% CI: 0.2,8.3%); no framework fracture was reported. Radiographic bone level changes did not yield statistically significant differences either at the prosthesis or at the implant levels when comparing ICFDPs with short-span implant-supported end-abutment fixed dental prostheses. Conclusions: ICFDPs represent a valid treatment modality; no detrimental effects can be expected on bone levels due to the presence of a cantilever extension per se. [source]

Bone level changes at implants supporting crowns or fixed partial dentures with or without cantilevers

CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, Issue 10 2008
Gian Andrea Hälg
Abstract Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze whether or not a cantilever extension on a fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) supported by implants increased the amount of peri-implant bone loss or technical complications compared with reconstructions without cantilevers. Materials and Methods: Fifty-four partially dentate patients with a total of 54 FDPs supported by 78 implants were enrolled in the study. Twenty-seven FDPs were with cantilever and 27 FDPs were without cantilever (control group). All FDPs were supported by one or two implants and were located in the posterior maxilla or mandible. The primary outcome variable was change in peri-implant marginal bone level from the time of FDP placement to the last follow-up visit. FDPs were under functional loading for a period of 3 up to 12.7 years. Statistical analysis was carried out with Student's t -test. Regression analyses were carried out to evaluate the influence of confounding factors on the peri-implant bone level change. In addition, implant survival rates were calculated and technical complications assessed. Results: After a mean observation period of 5.3 years, the mean peri-implant bone loss for the FDPs with cantilevers was 0.23 mm (SD±0.63 mm) and 0.09 mm (SD±0.43 mm) for FDPs without cantilever. Concerning the bone level change at implants supporting FDPs with or without cantilevers no statistically significant differences were found. The regression analysis revealed that jaw of implant placement had a statistically significant influence on peri-implant bone loss. When the bone loss in the cantilever group and the control group were compared within the maxilla or mandible separately, no statistically significant difference was found. Implant survival rates reached 95.7% for implants supporting cantilever prostheses and 96.9% for implants of the control group. Five FDPs in the cantilever group showed minor technical complications, none were observed in the control group. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study it was concluded that cantilever on FDPs did not lead to a higher implant failure rate and did not lead to more bone loss around supporting implants compared with implants supporting conventional FDPs. In contrast to these results more technical complications were observed in the group reconstructed with cantilever. [source]