We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Prosthodontics
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Prosthodont 22 (2009), No. 3     15. May 2009
Int J Prosthodont 22 (2009), No. 3  (15.05.2009)

Page 260-267, PubMed:19548408


Changes in the Outcome of Metal-Ceramic Tooth-Supported Single Crowns and FDPs Following the Introduction of Osseointegrated Implant Dentistry into a Prosthodontic Practice
Walton, Terry R.
Purpose: The aim of this study was to prospectively analyze the effect that the incorporation of osseointegrated implant dentistry had on the outcome of metalceramic tooth-supported prostheses that had been in situ for 5 to 10 years.
Materials and Methods: The 10-year estimated (Kaplan-Meier) cumulative survival of metalceramic tooth-supported single crowns (TSCs) and metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (TFDPs) provided for all patients treated at two time periods was determined and statistically compared (log-rank test). Prostheses in group 1 (404 TSCs and 433 TFDP abutments in 189 TFDPs) were cemented between January 1989 and December 1993, with the outcome determined in 1998. Prostheses in group 2 (539 TSCs and 354 TFDP abutments in 142 TFDPs) were cemented between January 1997 and December 2001, with the outcome determined in 2006. A 500% increase in implants restored occurred between the end of group 1 and group 2 time periods.
Results: For TSCs, comparison between groups showed a significantly better survival in group 2 than in group 1 for nonvital TSCs (P = .001), nonvital maxillary anterior teeth (P = .003), nonvital maxillary lateral incisors (P = .008), and nonvital premolars (P = .013). Comparison within groups showed nonvital TSCs had a significantly decreased survival compared to vital TSCs in group 1 (P < .001), but not in group 2 (P = .48). Overall, the estimated cumulative 10-year survival of TSCs in group 2 was 94% ± 3%. For TFDPs, comparison between groups showed a significantly better survival for nonvital abutments in group 2 than in group 1 (P = .049). Comparison within groups showed nonvital TFDP abutments had a significantly decreased survival compared to vital TFDP abutments in group 1 (P = .001), but not in group 2 (P = .377). Overall, group 2's estimated cumulative 10-year survival for all TFDPs was 90% ± 6% and for three-unit TFDPs was 97% ± 2%. Teeth in group 2 failed less through fracture and periodontal disease than those in group 1.
Conclusions: The incorporation of osseointegrated implant dentistry has resulted in a significant improvement in the survival of TSCs and TFDP abutments, nonvital and vital teeth having equivalent survivals for TSCs and TFDPs, and a decrease in supporting-tooth failure through fracture and periodontal disease.