Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Comparison of implant versus tooth-supported zirconia-based single crowns in a split-mouth design: a 4-year clinical follow-up study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

This study aims to evaluate the 4-year clinical performance of tooth versus implant-supported single-unit zirconia crowns (LAVA™) placed on posterior region.

Materials and methods

Twenty-four patients (10 men and 14 women) who had received 48 single crowns (24 implant-supported and 24 tooth-supported) from January 2007 to December 2009, were included. California Dental Association (CDA) quality assessment system, plaque and gingival index scores were used to evaluate the performance of the crowns at baseline and at all follow-up examinations.

Results

During the follow-up period, no fracture of zirconia coping has occurred. Major complication was chipping in three patients that required a new crown fabrication. Except for the failure ones, all crowns in both groups were rated as satisfactory at the follow-up examinations based on the CDA quality assessment criteria. There were no statistically significant differences between tooth and implant-supported crowns in terms of periodontal parameters.

Conclusions

The present 4-year follow-up clinical study demonstrates that single-unit tooth- and implant-supported zirconia crowns have similar prosthetic and periodontal outcomes.

Clinical relevance

Single-unit implant or tooth-supported zirconia crowns may be considered acceptable treatment modalities for restoration of either missing or compromised posterior teeth

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Manicone PF, Iommetti PR, Raffaelli L (2007) An overview of zirconia ceramics: basic properties and clinical applications. J Dent 35:819–826

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Guazzato M, Albakry M, Ringer SP, Swain MV (2004) Strength, fracture toughness and microstructure of a selection of all-ceramic materials. Part II. Zirconia-based dental ceramics. Dent Mater 20:449–456

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Prestipino V, Ingber A (1993) Esthetic high-strength implant abutments. Part II. J Esthet Dent 5:63–68

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Prestipino V, Ingber A (1993) Esthetic high-strength implant abutments. Part I. J Esthet Dent 5:29–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Yilmaz H, Aydin C, Gul BE (2007) Flexural strength and fracture toughness of dental core ceramics. J Prosthet Dent 98:120–128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Denry I, Kelly JR (2008) State of the art of zirconia for dental applications. Dent Mater 24:299–307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Molin MK, Karlsson SL (2008) Five-year clinical prospective evaluation of zirconia-based Denzir 3-unit FPDs. Int J Prosthodont 21:223–227

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Raigrodski AJ, Chiche GJ, Potiket N et al (2006) The efficacy of posterior three-unit zirconium-oxide-based ceramic fixed partial dental prostheses: a prospective clinical pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 96:237–244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sailer I, Feher A, Filser F et al (2007) Five-year clinical results of zirconia frameworks for posterior fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont 20:383–388

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wolfart S, Harder S, Eschbach S, Lehmann F, Kern M (2009) Four-year clinical results of fixed dental prostheses with zirconia substructures (Cercon): end abutments vs. cantilever design. Eur J Oral Sci 117:741–749

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sax C, Hämmerle C, Sailer I (2011) 10-year clinical outcomes of fixed dental prostheses with zirconia frameworks. Int J Comput Dent 14:183–202

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Anusavice KJ (2003) Phillps’ science of dental materials, 11th edn. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 759–781

    Google Scholar 

  13. Su HA, Gonzalez-Martin O, Weisgold A, Lee E (2010) Considerations of implant abutment and crown contour: critical contour and subcritical contour. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 30:335–343

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Guess PC, Kulis A, Witkowski S et al (2008) Shear bond strengths between different zirconia cores and veneering ceramics and their susceptibility to thermocycling. Dent Mater 24:1556–1567

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Schmitter M, Mussotter K, Rammelsberg P, Gabbert O, Ohlmann B (2012) Clinical performance of long-span zirconia frameworks for fixed dental prostheses: 5-year results. J Oral Rehabil 39:552–557

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bonfante EA, da Silva NR, Coelho PG et al (2009) Effect of framework design on crown failure. Eur J Oral Sci 117:194–199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ferrari M, Giovannetti A, Carrabba M et al (2014) Fracture resistance of three porcelain-layered CAD/CAM zirconia frame designs. Dent Mater 30:e163–e168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Aktas G, Sahin E, Vallittu P, Ozcan M, Lassila L (2013) Effect of colouring green stage zirconia on the adhesion of veneering ceramics with different thermal expansion coefficients. Int J Oral Sci 5:236–241

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Teng JL, Wang H, Liao YM, Liang X (2012) Evaluation of a conditioning method to improve core-veneer bond strength of zirconia restorations. J Prosthet Dent 107:380–387

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jung RE, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Thoma DS (2012) Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 23:2–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ciftci Y, Canay S (2000) The effect of veneering materials on stress distribution in implant-supported fixed prosthetic restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15:571–582

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hammerle CHF, Wagner D, Bragger U et al (1995) Threshold of tactile sensitivity perceived with dental endosseous implants and natural teeth. Clin Oral Implants Res 6:83–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Larsson C, von Steyern PV (2010) Five-year follow-up of implant-supported Y-TZP and ZTA fixed dental prostheses. A randomized, prospective clinical trial comparing two different material systems. Int J Prosthodont 23:555–561

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. California Dental Association (1977) Quality evaluation for dental care. Guidelines for the assessment of clinical quality and professional performance. California Dental Association, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  25. Brecx MC, Lehmann B, Siegwart CM, Gehr P, Lang NP (1988) Observations on the initial-stages of healing following human experimental gingivitis. Clin Morphometric Study J Clin Periodontol 15:123–129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Etemadzadeh H, Meurman JH, Murtomaa H et al (1989) Effect on plaque growth and salivary microorganisms of amine fluoride-stannous fluoride and chlorhexidine-containing mouthrinses. J Clin Periodontol 16:175–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Shahin R, Kern M (2010) Effect of air-abrasion on the retention of zirconia ceramic crowns luted with different cements before and after artificial aging. Dent Mater 26:922–928

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Loe H (1967) The gingival index, the plaque index and the retention index systems. J Periodontol 38(Suppl):610–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Beuer F, Edelhoff D, Gernet W, Sorensen JA (2009) Three-year clinical prospective evaluation of zirconia-based posterior fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Clin Oral Investig 13:445–451

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Roediger M, Gersdorff N, Huels A, Rinke S (2010) Prospective evaluation of zirconia posterior fixed partial dentures: four-year clinical results. Int J Prosthodont 23:141–148

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sailer I, Gottner J, Kanel S, Hammerle CHF (2009) Randomized controlled clinical trial of zirconia-ceramic and metal-ceramic posterior fixed dental prostheses: a 3-year follow-up. Int J Prosthodont 22:553–560

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Schmitter M, Mussotter K, Rammelsberg P et al (2009) Clinical performance of extended zirconia frameworks for fixed dental prostheses: two-year results. J Oral Rehabil 36:610–615

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Triwatana P, Nagaviroj N, Tulapornchai C (2012) Clinical performance and failures of zirconia-based fixed partial dentures: a review literature. J Adv Prosthodont 4:76–83

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Monaco C, Caldari M, Scotti R et al (2013) Clinical evaluation of 1,132 zirconia-based single crowns: a retrospective cohort study from the AIOP clinical research group. Int J Prosthodont 26:435–442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ortorp A, Kihl ML, Carlsson GE (2012) A 5-year retrospective study of survival of zirconia single crowns fitted in a private clinical setting. J Dent 40:527–530

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Tartaglia GM, Sidoti E, Sforza C (2011) A 3-year follow-up study of all-ceramic single and multiple crowns performed in a private practice: a prospective case series. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 66:2063–2070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Tsumita MKY, Ohkubo C, Sakurai S, Fukushima S (2010) Clinical evaluation of posterior all-ceramic FPDs (Cercon): a prospective clinical pilot study. J Prosthodont Res 54:102–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wang H, Pallav P, Isgro G, Feilzer AJ (2007) Fracture toughness comparison of three test methods with four dental porcelains. Dent Mater 23:905–910

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Batson ER, Cooper LF, Duqum I, Mendonca G (2014) Clinical outcomes of three different crown systems with CAD/CAM technology. J Prosthet Dent 112:770–777

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Larsson C, von Steyern PV, Sunzel B, Nilner K (2006) All-ceramic two- to five-unit implant-supported reconstructions—a randomized, prospective clinical trial. Swed Dent J 30:45–53

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Nothdurft FP, Pospiech PR (2009) Zirconium dioxide implant abutments for posterior single-tooth replacement: first results. J Periodontol 80:2065–2072

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kokubo Y, Tsumita M, Sakurai S et al (2007) The effect of core framework designs on the fracture loads of all-ceramic fixed partial dentures on posterior implants. J Oral Rehabil 34:503–507

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Naert I, Van der Donck A, Beckers L (2005) Precision of fit and clinical evaluation of all-ceramic full restorations followed between 0 center dot 5 and 5 years. J Oral Rehabil 32:51–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Karatasli O, Kursoglu P, Capa N, Kazazoglu E (2011) Comparison of the marginal fit of different coping materials and designs produced by computer aided manufacturing systems. Dent Mater J 30:97–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Guljé FL, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Meijer HJ (2014) Single restorations in the resorbed posterior mandible supported by 6-mm Implants: a 1-year prospective case series study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 17(Suppl 2):e465–e471

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Cehreli MC, Kokat AM, Akca K (2009) CAD/CAM zirconia vs. slip-cast glass-infiltrated alumina/zirconia all-ceramic crowns: 2-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Appl Oral Sci 17:49–55

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Barnfather KDP, Brunton PA (2007) Restoration of the upper dental arch using LAVA (TM) all-ceramic crown and bridgework. Br Dent J 202:731–735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Jung RE, Sailer I, Hammerle CHF, Attin T, Schmidlin P (2007) In vitro color changes of soft tissues caused by restorative materials. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 27:251–257

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Mertens C, Steveling HG (2011) Implant-supported fixed prostheses in the edentulous maxilla: 8-year prospective results. Clin Oral Implants Res 22:464–472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mustafa Barış Güncü.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Mustafa Barış Güncü declares that he has no conflict of interest. Umut Cakan declares that he has no conflict of interest. Guliz Aktas declares that she has no conflict of interest. Güliz Nigar Güncü declares that she has no conflict of interest. Şenay Canay declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Funding

Funding information is not available.

Ethical approval

The study protocol was approved by the Committee on Research Ethics of Hacettepe University (GO 14/72-19).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to treatment.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Güncü, M.B., Cakan, U., Aktas, G. et al. Comparison of implant versus tooth-supported zirconia-based single crowns in a split-mouth design: a 4-year clinical follow-up study. Clin Oral Invest 20, 2467–2473 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1763-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1763-x

Keywords

Navigation