Clinical outcomes with short implant-supported bridges made of various prosthetic materials: 1-year pilot RCT results

Introduction

Durability, esthetics, and biological response to the prosthetic materials are essential for the overall success of the dental restorations. Bridges might be composed of metal or zirconia frameworks, but both are susceptible to chipping of their ceramic component or experience other complications. Recently, monolithic zirconia has been utilized as an alternative, but no controlled studies have compared the different performance aspects of these various materials. 

This pilot study aimed to compare the rate of complications of the novel monolithic zirconia to that of metalo- and zirconia-ceramics bridge restorations.

KEY RESULTS

- The final prosthetic delivery (FPD) occurred at a mean of 4.82 ± 1.89 months after implant insertion with only slight differences between the groups. 

- The mean marginal bone level change (MBLC) from FPD to 1-year follow-up (actual time between the X-rays: 1.1 ± 0.27 years) was -0.26 ± 0.96 mm (n=113), with no statistically significant differences between the groups. 

- In this first year interim report, there were 5 instances of mucositis, 3 cases of chipping, and single occurrences of other complications. Overall, metalo-ceramic group had 6 recorded complications, zirconia-ceramic experienced 4, while monolithic zirconia had only 2. 

CITATION 

Presented at the 31st Annual Scientific Meeting of the European Association for Osseointegration (IAO-EA-SIdP Joint Meeting), October 24 – 26, 2024.

Kowar J, Stenport V, Barkarmo S. (October 2024) IAO-EAO-SIdP 2024-CRP 491 | Clinical outcomes with short implant-supported bridges made of various prosthetic materials: 1-year pilot RCT results. E-Poster. Clin Oral Impl Res; Volume 35, Issue S28; p218-219. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.14366

REFERENCES

1. Sailer, I. et al. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic and metal-ceramic multiple-unit fixed dental prostheses. COIR, 29 (16):184-198 (2021).

2. Worni et al. Monolithic zirconia reconstructions supported by teeth and implants: 1- to 3-year results of a case series. Quintessence I. 48(6):459-467 (2017).

3. Vizcaya, F.R. Retrospective 2- to 7-Year Follow-Up Study of 20 Double Full-Arch Implant-Supported Monolithic Zirconia Fixed Prostheses: Measurements and Recommendations for Optimal Design. J Prosthodont 27(6):501-508 (2018).