We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 32 (2017), No. 4     18. July 2017
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 32 (2017), No. 4  (18.07.2017)

Page 864-869, doi:10.11607/jomi.5369, PubMed:28708920


Complications and Clinical Considerations of the Implant-Retained Zirconia Complete-Arch Prosthesis with Various Opposing Dentitions
Gonzalez, Jorge / Triplett, Robert G.
Purpose: To evaluate the performance of the implant-retained zirconia complete-arch prosthesis with various opposing dentitions.
Materials and Methods: The 40 patients included in this retrospective case series study were treated with one or two implant-retained zirconia complete-arch prostheses (ZIRCAP) using the Zirkonzahn protocol. Prettau zirconia frames were created with strategic cutbacks in the structure to extend zirconia incisal coverage of the esthetic anterior sextants and complete monolithic zirconia in the molar areas; subsequent layers of porcelain were applied to nonfunctional and esthetic areas. Patients had three possible occlusal scenarios: (1) maxillary ZIRCAP and mandibular ZIRCAP, (2) maxillary ZIRCAP and mandibular natural dentition, and (3) maxillary ZIRCAP and mandibular conventional hybrid prosthesis. Complications were recorded during follow-up appointments 3, 6, and 12 months after definitive prosthesis delivery. The mean treatment observation period was 33 months.
Results: Eight prosthetic complications were noted for the 40 implant-retained zirconia complete-arch prostheses (18.18%), including six cases of minor porcelain chipping and two cases of debonding of the metal insert from the zirconia framework. Maxillary ZIRCAP opposing mandibular ZIRCAP and maxillary ZIRCAP opposing mandibular natural dentition occlusal scenarios presented the same complication ratio of 4. No complications were seen in the maxillary ZIRCAP opposing mandibular conventional hybrid prosthesis group, yet 16 complications were found as denture tooth fractures in 12 mandibular conventional hybrid prostheses (ratio of 0.75).
Conclusion: The results indicate that the implantretained zirconia complete-arch prosthesis offers acceptable performance for use as an alternative to the conventional titanium framework acrylic veneer prosthesis for complete edentulism with a lower incidence of prosthetic complications and fewer maintenance appointments. Chipping of veneering porcelain was the most common complication, but a low incidence was observed in this study. Acrylic denture teeth may represent the weakest link when restoring complete edentulism with a maxillary ZIRCAP and mandibular conventional hybrid prosthesis.

Keywords: implant-retained zirconia complete-arch prosthesis, monolithlic zirconia frame, Prettau zirconia, strategic cutback of zirconia frame