Amaç: Bu in vivo çalışmanın amacı, posterior bölgedeki 3 üyeli zirkonyum destekli ve monolitik zirkonya restorasyonların klinik başarısını değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmamıza, simetrik (split-mouth) alt çene birinci molar eksikliği olan 3 üyeli sabit protetik tedavi gereksinimli 20 katılımcı dahil edilmiştir. Hastalara CAD/CAM kullanılarak toplam 40 adet köprü restorasyonu (20 adet monolitik zirkonya restorasyon (Zenostar T) ve 20 adet zirkonyum destekli restorasyonların altyapıları (IPS e.max ZirCAD)) üretilmiştir. Üstyapı veneer seramiği (IPS e.max Ceram) ile tabakalama tekniği kullanılarak zirkonyum destekli restorasyonların üretimi tamamlanmıştır. Klinik değerlendirmeleri 1. hafta, 6. ay ve 1. yılda FDI kriterleri kullanılarak yapıldı. İstatistiksel analiz için “Friedman” ve “Wilcoxon” testi kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Elde edilen verilere göre çift tabakalı ve monolitik restorasyonlarda estetik kriterlerden “yüzey parlaklığı”, “yüzeyel ve marjinal renklenme”, “renk uyumu ve translusensi”, “estetik ve anatomik form” değerlerinde zaman içerisinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark gözlenmemiştir (p>0,05). Çalışmamızda, FDI’in fonksiyonel ve biyolojik kriterleri için elde edilen veriler çift tabakalı ve monolitik restorasyonlar için istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulunmamıştır (p>0,05). Sonuç: FDI kriterleri kullanılarak yapılan incelemelerde “renk uyumu ve translusensi” değerlendirmelerinde zirkonyum destekli restorasyonların; “estetik ve anatomik form” değerlendirmelerinde monolitik zirkonya restorasyonların daha başarılı sonuçlar verdiği görülmüştür. Çalışmamızda, zirkonya restorasyonların 1 yıllık klinik takibinde başarı oranı %100 olarak belirlenmiştir.
Aim: The aim of this in vivo study was performed to evaluate and compare clinical success of 3-unit zirconia-supported and monolithic zirconia restorations in the posterior region. Materials and Methods: Twenty patients who required three-unit fixed partial dentures due to a missing first molar in both half jaws (split-mouth design) were included in this in vivo study. A total of 40 bridge restorations (20 restorations were monolithic zirconia (Zenostar T), and the framework of 20 were zirconia-supported restorations (IPS e.max ZirCAD)) were fabricated with CAD/CAM technology. Zirconia-supported restorations built with superstructure by hand-layering technique with veneering ceramic (IPS e.max Ceram). Clinical evaluations were made at 1. week, 6. months and 1. year using FDI criteria. Statistical analysis was performed using “Friedman” and “Wilcoxon” tests were used. Results: There was no statistically significant difference within the double-layer and monolithic restoration groups for aesthetic criteria (“Surface brightness”, “Superficial and marginal staining”, “Color matching and translucency”, “Aesthetic and anatomical form”) depending on time (p>0,05). The data obtained from this study according to the functional and biological criteria of FDI were not statistically significant for double-layer and monolithic restorations (p>0,05). Conclusion: According to the criteria of FDI, the zirconium supported restorations were found to be more successful in “Color matching and translucency” and monolithic zirconia restorations were found to be more successful in “Aesthetic and anatomical form” evaluation. In the present study, the success rate was determined as 100% in 1-year clinical follow-up of zirconia restorations.
1. Vagkopoulou T, Koutayas SO, Koidis P, Strub JR. Zirconia in dentistry: Part 1. Discovering the nature of an upcoming bioceramic. Eur J Esthet Dent 2009; 4:130- 151.
2. Zhang Y. Making yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia translucent. Dent Mater 2014; 30: 1195-203.
3. Sailer I, Balmer M, Hüsler J, Hämmerle CHF, Känel S, et al. 10-year randomized trial (RCT) of zirconia-ceramic and metal-ceramic fixed dental prostheses. J Dent 2018; 76: 32-39.
4. Monaco C, Caldari M, Scotti R. Clinical evaluation of zirconia-based single crowns: a retrospective cohort study from the AIOP clinical research group. Int J Prosthodont 2013; 26:435-442.
5. Rinke S, Wehle J, Schulz X, Bürgers R, Rödiger M. Prospective Evaluation of Posterior Fixed Zirconia Dental Prostheses: 10-Year Clinical Results. Int J Prosthodont 2018; 31: 35-42.
6. Bankoğlu Güngör M, Karakoca Nemli S. Fracture resistance of CAD-CAM monolithic zirconia molar crowns after aging in a mastication simulator. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 119: 473-480.
7. Kale E, Seker E, Yilmaz B, Ozcelik TB. Effect of cement space on the marginal fit of CAD-CAM-fabricated monolithic zirconia crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 890-895.
8. Sun T, Zhou S, Lai R, Liu R, Ma S, Zhou Z, Longquan S. Load-bearing capacity and the recommended thickness of dental monolithic zirconia single crowns. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2014; 35: 93-101.
9. Janyavula S, Lawson N, Cakir D, Beck P, Ramp LC, Burgess JO. The wear of polished and glazed zirconia against enamel. J Prosthet Dent 2013; 109: 22-29.
10. Randall RC, Wilson NHF. Clinical testing of restorative materials some historical landmarks. J Dent 1999; 27: 543-50.
11. Sailer I, Bonani T, Brodbeck U, Hammerle CH. Retrospective clinical study of singleretainer cantilever anterior and posterior glass-ceramic resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses at a mean follow-up of 6 years. Int J Prosthodont 2013; 26: 443-50.
12. Beier US, Kapferer I, Burtscher D, Dumfahrt H. Clinical performance of porcelain laminate veneers for up to 20 years. Int J Prosthodont 2012; 25:79-85.
13. Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, Mjor I. FDI World Dental Federation: clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations-update and clinical examples. Clin Oral Invest 2010; 14: 349-366.
14. Lee B, Oh KC, Haam D, Lee JH, Moon HS. Evaluation of the fit of zirconia copings fabricated by direct and indirect digital scanning procedures. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 120: 225-31.
15. Ueda K, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Erdelt K, Keul C, et al. Fit of 4-unit FDPs from CoCr and zirconia after conventional and digital impressions. Clin Oral Invest 2016; 20: 283-289.
16. Tonetti MS, BottenbergP, Conrads G, Eickholz P, Heasman P, et al. Dental caries and periodontal diseases in the ageing population: call to action to protect and enhance oral health and well-being as an essential component of healthy ageing-consensus report of group 4 of the joint EFP/ORCA workshop on the boundaries between caries and periodontal diseases. J Clin Periodontol 2017; 44: 135-144.
17. Van Dijken JW, Hasselrot L. A prospective 15-year evaluation of extensive dentin- enamer-bonded pressed ceramic coverages. Dent Mater 2010; 26: 929-939.
18. Fradeani M, D'Amelio M, Redemagni M, Corrado M. 5-year follow-up with Procera all-ceramic crowns. Quin tessence Int 2005; 36: 105-113.
19. Lindunger A, Smedberg JI. A retrospective study of the prosthodontic management of patients with amelogenesis imperfecta. Int J Prosthodont 2005; 18: 189-194.
20. Naert I, Donk AVD, Beckers L. Precision of fit and clinical evaluation of all-ceramic full restorations followed between 0.5 and 5 years. J Oral Rehabil. 2005; 32: 51-57.
21. Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Gernet W, Edelhoff D, Güh JF, Naumann M. Prospective study of zirconia-based restorations: 3-year clinical results. Quintessence Int 2010; 41: 631-637.
22. Pelaez J, Cogolludo PG, Serrano B, Serrano JF, Suarez MJ. A four-year prospective clinical evaluation of zirconia and metal-ceramic posterior fixed dental prostheses. Int J Prosthodont 2012; 25: 451-458.
23. Rinke S, Gersdorff N, Lange K, Roediger M. Prospective evaluation of zirconia posterior fixed partial dentures; 7 year clinical results. Int J Prosthodont 2013; 26: 167-71.
24. Sulaiman TA, Abdulmajeed AA, Donovan TE, Cooper LF, Walter R. Fracture rate of monolithic zirconia restorations up to 5 years: A dental laboratory survey. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 116: 436-439.
25. Bömicke W, Rammelsberg P, Stober T, Schmitter M. Short-Term Prospective Clinical Evaluation of Monolithic and Partially Veneered Zirconia Single Crowns. J Esthet Restor Dent 2017; 29: 22-30.
26. Bankoğlu Güngör M, Karakoca Nemli S, Çağlar A, Aydın C, Yılmaz H. Clinical study on the success of posterior monolithic zirconia crowns and fixed dental prostheses: preliminary report Acta Odontol Turc 2017; 34: 104-108.
27. Konstantinidis I, Trikka D, Gasparatos S, Mitsias ME. Clinical Outcomes of Monolithic Zirconia Crowns with CAD/CAM Technology. A 1-Year Follow-Up Prospective Clinical Study of 65 Patients. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018; 1215(11).
28. Worni A, Katsoulis J, Kolgeci L, Worni M, Mericske-Stern R. Monolithic zirconia reconstructions supported by teeth and implants: 1- to 3-year results of a case series. Quintessence Int. 2017;48:459-467.
29. Sarıkaya I, Hayran Y. Effects of dynamic aging on the wear and fracture strength of monolithic zirconia restorations. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):146.
30. Marquillier T, Doméjean S, Le Clerc J, Chemla F, Gritsch K, et al. The use of FDI criteria in clinical trials on direct dental restorations: A scoping review. J Dent. 2018;68:1-9.
31. Raigrodski AJ, Chiche GJ, Potiket N, Hochstedler JL, Mohammed SE, et al. The efficacy of posterior three-unit zirconium-oxide-based ceramic fixed partial dental prostheses: a prospective clinical pilot study. J Prosthet Dent. 2006;96(4):237-44.
32. Pihlaja J. Treatment Outcome of Zirconia Single Crowns and Fixed Dental Prostheses. University of Oulu. Doktora Tezi, 2016, Finlandiya (Danışman: Prof. Dr. A Raustia).
33. Pjetursson BE, Sailer I, Makarov NA, Zwahlen M, Thoma DS. All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported f ixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part II: Multiple-unit FDPs. Dent Mater. 2015;31:624-639.
34. Sailer I, Makarov NA, Thoma DS, Zwahlen M, Pjetursson BE. All-ceramic or metalceramic tooth-supported f ixed dental prostheses (FDPs) A systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Part I: Single crowns (SCs). Dent Mater. 2015;31(6):603-623.
35. Schmitter M, Mueller D, Rues S. Chipping behaviour of all-ceramic crowns with zirconia framework and CAD/ CAM manufactured veneer. J Dent. 2012;40:154-162.
36. Tartaglia GM, Sidoti E, Sforza C. Seven-year prospective clinical study on zirconia-based single crowns and fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19(5):11371145.
37. Lawson NC, Bansal R, Burgess JO. Wear, strength, modulus and hardness of CAD/CAM restorative materials. Dent Mater. 2016;32:275-283.
38. Tang Z, Zhao X, Wang H, Liu B. Clinical evaluation of monolithic zirconia crowns for posterior teeth restorations. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(40):17385.