A Retrospective Clinical Multicenter Study of Single Retainer Glass-Ceramic Resin Bonded Fixed Dental Prostheses and Implant-Supported Single Crowns in the Esthetic Zone.
Zahra Athab Abdulijabbar, Alf Eliasson, Victoria Franke Stenport, Lars Hjalmarsson
{"title":"A Retrospective Clinical Multicenter Study of Single Retainer Glass-Ceramic Resin Bonded Fixed Dental Prostheses and Implant-Supported Single Crowns in the Esthetic Zone.","authors":"Zahra Athab Abdulijabbar, Alf Eliasson, Victoria Franke Stenport, Lars Hjalmarsson","doi":"10.11607/ijp.9427","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate and compare the 3-8-year survival, complication, esthetics, and patient- reported outcomes of single retainer glass-ceramic resin bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDPs), and implant supported single crowns (ISSCs).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A retrospective multicenter study including 48 participants with 66 single retainer lithium disilicate RBFDPs and 45 participants with 53 ISSCs in the anterior or premolar position. A clinical and radiographical examination including esthetic evaluation using White and Pink Esthetic Score index (PES and WES) were performed. Participants completed the Oral Health Impact Profile questionnaire (OHIP-14) and a visual analogue scale VAS, to evaluate subjective treatment outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean follow up was 50 months for RBFDPs and 73 months for ISSCs. There was a statistically significant difference in 5-year survival rates for RBFDPs 87.9% and ISSCs 96.7% and 100% for implants (P=.012). There was also a statistically significant difference in survival rates for RBFDPs between the clinics (P = .015). The RBFDP group had 15% technical complications (one debonding and nine fatal fractures), and the ISSCs had 11.3% technical (four extensive and two minor ceramic fractures) and 5.6% biological complications. The WES evaluation was statistically significantly better for RBFDPs than for the ISSCs (P=.002) but, no statistical difference was present in PES evaluation (P=.47). All participants were satisfied according to OHIP-14 and VAS except for two with ISSCs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ISSCs had a higher survival rate than the RBFDPs, however a correctly designed single retainer glass-ceramic lithium disilicate RBFDP is a viable treatment when ISSC is not indicated.</p>","PeriodicalId":94232,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of prosthodontics","volume":"0 0","pages":"1-26"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.9427","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate and compare the 3-8-year survival, complication, esthetics, and patient- reported outcomes of single retainer glass-ceramic resin bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDPs), and implant supported single crowns (ISSCs).
Materials and methods: A retrospective multicenter study including 48 participants with 66 single retainer lithium disilicate RBFDPs and 45 participants with 53 ISSCs in the anterior or premolar position. A clinical and radiographical examination including esthetic evaluation using White and Pink Esthetic Score index (PES and WES) were performed. Participants completed the Oral Health Impact Profile questionnaire (OHIP-14) and a visual analogue scale VAS, to evaluate subjective treatment outcomes.
Results: The mean follow up was 50 months for RBFDPs and 73 months for ISSCs. There was a statistically significant difference in 5-year survival rates for RBFDPs 87.9% and ISSCs 96.7% and 100% for implants (P=.012). There was also a statistically significant difference in survival rates for RBFDPs between the clinics (P = .015). The RBFDP group had 15% technical complications (one debonding and nine fatal fractures), and the ISSCs had 11.3% technical (four extensive and two minor ceramic fractures) and 5.6% biological complications. The WES evaluation was statistically significantly better for RBFDPs than for the ISSCs (P=.002) but, no statistical difference was present in PES evaluation (P=.47). All participants were satisfied according to OHIP-14 and VAS except for two with ISSCs.
Conclusions: ISSCs had a higher survival rate than the RBFDPs, however a correctly designed single retainer glass-ceramic lithium disilicate RBFDP is a viable treatment when ISSC is not indicated.