IADR Abstract Archives
Comparison of Full Zirconia Versus Ceramo-Zirconia in Implant-Supported Prostheses: a 5-Year Study
Objectives: Aim:
The aim of this study is to compare the clinical performance, esthetic outcomes, and long-term durability of full zirconia and ceramo-zirconia materials in implant-supported prostheses over a 5-year period.
Methods:
This retrospective cohort study was conducted at Farhat Hached University Hospital in Sousse, involving 30 patients (15 with full zirconia and 15 with ceramo-zirconia implant-supported prostheses) over a 5-year period. All patients underwent standardized clinical and radiographic evaluations to assess suitability for implant placement. Both types of prostheses were fabricated using CAD/CAM technology, with full zirconia crowns being monolithic and ceramo-zirconia prostheses consisting of a zirconia framework veneered with porcelain. Patients were followed up at 6 months, 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years, with clinical outcomes such as prosthetic survival, esthetic results, marginal bone loss, and patient satisfaction being evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed to compare outcomes between the two groups, with a significance level set at p < 0.05.
Results: Out of the 30 patients, all implant-supported prostheses showed high survival rates over the 5-year period, with no significant failures in either the full zirconia or ceramo-zirconia groups. However, differences were observed in the complication rates. In the ceramo-zirconia group, 4 prostheses (26.6%) exhibited veneer chipping, while none of the full zirconia prostheses showed any chipping or fractures. Esthetically, the ceramo-zirconia group received higher scores for translucency and natural appearance, as reported by both patients and clinicians. Marginal bone loss was minimal and comparable in both groups, with no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05). Patient satisfaction was high in both groups, though slightly higher in the ceramo-zirconia group due to its superior esthetics. Overall, full zirconia prostheses demonstrated better durability, while ceramo-zirconia offered enhanced esthetic outcomes.
Conclusions: Both full zirconia and ceramo-zirconia implant-supported prostheses performed well over 5 years. Full zirconia showed superior durability with no chipping, while ceramo-zirconia provided better esthetic outcomes. Material choice should be guided by the clinical and esthetic needs of each case.
The aim of this study is to compare the clinical performance, esthetic outcomes, and long-term durability of full zirconia and ceramo-zirconia materials in implant-supported prostheses over a 5-year period.
Methods:
This retrospective cohort study was conducted at Farhat Hached University Hospital in Sousse, involving 30 patients (15 with full zirconia and 15 with ceramo-zirconia implant-supported prostheses) over a 5-year period. All patients underwent standardized clinical and radiographic evaluations to assess suitability for implant placement. Both types of prostheses were fabricated using CAD/CAM technology, with full zirconia crowns being monolithic and ceramo-zirconia prostheses consisting of a zirconia framework veneered with porcelain. Patients were followed up at 6 months, 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years, with clinical outcomes such as prosthetic survival, esthetic results, marginal bone loss, and patient satisfaction being evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed to compare outcomes between the two groups, with a significance level set at p < 0.05.
Results: Out of the 30 patients, all implant-supported prostheses showed high survival rates over the 5-year period, with no significant failures in either the full zirconia or ceramo-zirconia groups. However, differences were observed in the complication rates. In the ceramo-zirconia group, 4 prostheses (26.6%) exhibited veneer chipping, while none of the full zirconia prostheses showed any chipping or fractures. Esthetically, the ceramo-zirconia group received higher scores for translucency and natural appearance, as reported by both patients and clinicians. Marginal bone loss was minimal and comparable in both groups, with no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05). Patient satisfaction was high in both groups, though slightly higher in the ceramo-zirconia group due to its superior esthetics. Overall, full zirconia prostheses demonstrated better durability, while ceramo-zirconia offered enhanced esthetic outcomes.
Conclusions: Both full zirconia and ceramo-zirconia implant-supported prostheses performed well over 5 years. Full zirconia showed superior durability with no chipping, while ceramo-zirconia provided better esthetic outcomes. Material choice should be guided by the clinical and esthetic needs of each case.