Preview

Sechenov Medical Journal

Advanced search

Clinical advantages of cad-cam-fabricated full-arch fixed implant-supported monolithic zirconia dental prosthesis with digital modelling of the occlusion surfaces

https://doi.org/ 10.47093/2218-7332_2018.3.41-48

Full Text:

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to assess the quality of the functionality of CAD-CAM full-arch fixed implant-supported monolithic zirconia dental prostheses with digital modelling of the occlusal surface. We conducted a clinical (external examination, examination of the oral cavity and prostheses, muscle palpation) and paraclinical examination of 20 patients (of them men - 61.3%, women - 38.7%) aged 41-77 years (57.19±9.05). Prostheses were based on 237 implants Nobel Replace/Select/Groovy, Nobel Parallel CC. The number of supports for one prostheses was from 6 to 10, which averaged 7.64±1.08. ZICERAM, PRETTAU ZIRCONIA were used for creating CAD-CAM full-arch fixed implant-supported monolithic zirconia dental prostheses. To record the biopotentials of the masticatory muscles, the electroneuromyographic system "Synapsis" with surface electrodes was used. Electronic registration of movements of the mandible was carried out on an electronic axiograph "CADIAX 3 diagnostic", using the software "Gamma Dental Software". Statistical processing of the data was carried out using a PC in an Excel 2016 using the IBM SPSS Statistics 23 statistical software package. The survival rate was 100% for implants and prostheses. Additional in vitro and clinical studies will be required for more scientific analysis of the criteria for design of this type of prosthesis to minimize all types complications.

About the Authors

R. A. Rozov
I.P.Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation; City Dental Clinic №33
Russian Federation


V. N. Trezubov
I.P.Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation


A. Pozzi
Augusta University
Russian Federation


References

1. Spitznagel F.A., Horvath S.D, Gierthmuehlen P.C. Prosthetic protocols in implant - based oral rehabilitations: A systematic review on the clinical outcome of monolithic all - ceramic single - and multi - unit prostheses. Eur J Oral Implantol 2017; 10 (Suppl. 1): 89-99.

2. Tiossi R, Gomes É.A, Faria A.C.L et al. Biomechanical behavior of titanium and zirconia frameworks for implant - supported full - arch fixed dental prosthesis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017; 19 (5): 860-6.

3. Pozzi A, Holst S, Fabbri G, Tallarico M. Clinical reliability of CAD/CAM cross - arch zirconia bridges on immediately loaded implants placed with computer - assisted/template - guided surgery: a retrospective study with a follow - up between 3 and 5 years. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015; 17 (Suppl. 1): e86-96.

4. Trezubov V.N, Rozov R.A, Azarin G.S. Conceptual approach to classification of implant sup - ported prosthesis for edentulous patients. Stomatologiia (Mosk). 2017; 96 (1): 51-5.

5. Yilmaz B, Alshahrani F.A, Kale E, Johnston W.M. Effect of feldspathic porcelain layering on the marginal fit of zirconia and titanium complete - arch fixed implant - supported frameworks. J Prosthet Dent 2018 Feb 6. pii: S0022-3913(17)30733-3

6. Булычева Е.А., Трезубов В.Н., Лобко Ю.В. и др. Планирование и реализация протезирования с использованием цифровых технологий у пациентов с полной потерей зубов. Цифровая стоматология. 2017; 1 (6): 4-13.

7. Булычева Е.А., Трезубов В.Н., Лобко Ю.В. и др. Клинический случай. Модифицированная методика создания предварительного имплантационного протеза. Пародонтология. 2017; 1 (82): 59-64.

8. Булычева Е.А., Трезубов В.Н., Алпатьева Ю.В. и др. Использование современного диагностического ресурса при создании должной окклюзионной поверхности искусственных зубных рядов. Пародонтология. 2018; 1 (83): 52-7.

9. Трезубов В.Н., Булычева Е.А., Лобко Ю.В. и др. Компьютерное создание предварительных имплантационных протезов. Цифровая стоматология. 2016; 2 (5): 4-102.

10. Трезубов В.Н., Булычева Е.А., Алпатьева Ю.В. и др. Создание оптимального положения окклюзионной поверхности протяженных имплантационных протезов. Ч. 1. Институт стоматологии. 2016; 2 (71): 54-6.

11. Трезубов В.Н., Булычева Е.А., Алпатьева Ю.В. и др. Создание оптимального положения окклюзионной поверхности протяженных имплантационных протезов. Ч. 2. Институт стоматологии. 2016; 3 (72): 45-7.

12. Kurbad A. Microveneering technique for esthetic enhancement of monolithic zirconia restorations. Int J Comput Dent 2016; 19 (2): 165-78.

13. Limmer B, Sanders A.E, Reside G, Cooper L.F. Complications and patient - centered outcomes with an implant - supported monolithic zirconia fixed dental prosthesis: 1 year results. J Prosthodont 2014; 23 (4): 267-75.

14. Papaspyridakos P, Kang K, DeFuria C et al. Digital workflow in full - arch implant rehabilitation with segmented minimally veneered monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses: 2-year clinical follow - up. J Esthet Restor Dent 2018; 30 (1): 5-13.

15. Venezia P, Torsello F, Cavalcanti R, D'Amato S. Retrospective analysis of 26 complete - arch implant - supported monolithic zirconia prostheses with feldspathic porcelain veneering limited to the facial surface. J Prosthet Dent 2015; 114 (4): 506-12.

16. Tischler M, Patch C, Bidra A.S. Rehabilitation of edentulous jaws with zirconia complete - arch fixed implant - supported prostheses: An up to 4-year retrospective clinical study. J Prosthet Dent 2018 Mar 17. pii: S0022-3913(18)30036-2

17. Bidra A.S, Tischler M, Patch C. Survival of 2039 complete arch fixed implant - supported zironia prostheses: A retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 119 (2): 220-4.

18. Carames J, Tovar Suinaga L, Yu.Y.C et al. Clinical Advantages and Limitations of Mono - lithic Zirconia Restorations Full Arch Implant Supported Reconstruction: Case Series. Int J Dent 2015; 2015: 392496.

19. Cardelli P, Manobianco F.P, Serafini N et al. Full-Arch, Implant-Supported Monolithic Zirconia Rehabilitations: Pilot Clinical Evaluation of Wear Against Natural or Composite Teeth. J Prosthodont 2016; 25 (8): 629-33.

20. Gonzalez J, Triplett R.G. Complications and Clinical Considerations of the Implant-Retained Zirconia Complete-Arch Prosthesis with Various Opposing Dentitions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017; 32 (4): 864-9.

21. De Andrade C.L, Carvalho M.A, Del Bel Cury A.A, Sotto-Maior B.S. Biomechanical Effect of Prosthetic Connection and Implant Body Shape in Low-Quality Bone of Maxillary Posterior Single Implant-Supported Restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016; 31 (4): e92-7.

22. Розов Р.А., Азарин Г.С., Герасимов А.Б., Эмдин Л.М. Особенности имплантационного протезирования протяженными конструкциями пациентов с бруксизмом. Стоматология. 2016; 95 (6): 64-5. / Rozov R.A., Azarin G.S., Gerasimov A.B., Emdin L.M. Clinical features of full - arch fixed implant - supported dental prosthesis of patients with bruxism. Stomatologiya. 2016; 95 (6): 64-5. [in Russian]

23. Abdulmajeed A.A, Lim K.G, Närhi T.O, Cooper L.F. Complete - arch implant - supported monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Jun; 115 (6): 672-677.e1.

24. Трезубов В.Н., Булычева Е.А., Азарин Г.С. и др. Оптимизация исходов непосредственного имплантационного зубного протезирования протяженными замещающими конструкциями. Вестн. Казахского НМУ (Алма-Ата). 2017; 1: 224-9.

25. Altarawneh S, Limmer B, Reside G.J, Cooper L. Dual jaw treatment of edentulism using implant - supported monolithic zirconia fixed prostheses. J Esthet Restor Dent 2015; 27 (2): 63-70.

26. Amin S, Weber H.P, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. Full-Mouth Implant Rehabilitation With Monolithic Zirconia: Benefits and Limitations. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2017; 38 (1): e1-e4.

27. Bidra A.S, Rungruanganunt P, Gauthier M. Clinical outcomes of full arch fixed implant - supported zirconia prostheses: A systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol 2017; 10 (Suppl 1): 35-45.

28. Gomes É.A, Tiossi R, Faria A.C et al. Torque loss under mechanical cycling of long - span zirconia and titanium - cemented and screw - retained implant - supported CAD/CAM frameworks. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014; 25 (12): 1395-402.

29. Sônego M.V, Goiato M.C, Dos Santos D.M. Electromyography evaluation of masseter and temporalis, bite force, and quality of life in elderly patients during the adaptation of mandibular implant - supported overdentures. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28 (10): e169-e174.

30. Tartaglia G.M, Testori T, Pallavera A et al. Electromyographic analysis of masticatory and neck muscles in subjects with natural dentition, teeth - supported and implant - supported prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19 (10): 1081-8.

31. Müller F, Hernandez M, Grütter L et al. Masseter muscle thickness, chewing efficiency and bite force in edentulous patients with fixed and removable implant - supported prostheses: a cross - sectional multicenter study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23 (2): 144-50.

32. Rojas Vizcaya F. 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 2018; 27 (6): 501-8.


Review

Views: 282


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2218-7332 (Print)
ISSN 2658-3348 (Online)