Prospective evaluation of implants‐supported, tooth‐implant supported, and teeth‐supported 3‐unit posterior monolithic zirconia fixed restorations: Bite force and patient satisfaction
Abstract Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the maximum bite force (MBF) and satisfaction of patients restored with implants, combined tooth‐implants, and teeth‐supported monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Materials and Methods Thirty partially edentulous patients in need of th...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2023-10-01
|
| Series: | Clinical and Experimental Dental Research |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.780 |
| _version_ | 1797657915621900288 |
|---|---|
| author | Sadeq Altayyar Walid Al‐zordk Radwan Algabri Eshraq Rajah Abdulsattar Al‐baadani Ahmed Yaseen Alqutaibi Manal Abo Madina Mohammed H. Ghazy |
| author_facet | Sadeq Altayyar Walid Al‐zordk Radwan Algabri Eshraq Rajah Abdulsattar Al‐baadani Ahmed Yaseen Alqutaibi Manal Abo Madina Mohammed H. Ghazy |
| author_sort | Sadeq Altayyar |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the maximum bite force (MBF) and satisfaction of patients restored with implants, combined tooth‐implants, and teeth‐supported monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Materials and Methods Thirty partially edentulous patients in need of three units of FDPs in their mandibular posterior region were divided into three equal groups (n = 10) as follows: Group‐1 patients received two implants for each at the second premolar and second molar regions, Group‐2 patients received one implant for each at the second molar region, and Group‐3 patients with missing lower first molar. All the restorations were constructed from monolithic zirconia. Patients were evaluated 1 week after placement of restorations (baseline) and then after 6, 12, and 24‐month intervals for MBF using force transducer occlusal force meter and satisfaction (function, esthetic, and overall satisfaction) using a visual analog scale. Results The mean MBF for Group 1 was higher than Group 2 (p = .044) but not that of Group 3 (p = .923). Additionally, Group 3 displayed a higher MBF than Group 2, although this difference was not statistically significant (p = .096). Concerning patient satisfaction, all study groups reported high levels of satisfaction across all satisfaction elements, and no significant differences were observed between the groups. Conclusion Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that Group 1 gives comparable anticipated treatment outcomes as Group 3 concerning biting force and patient satisfaction. However, Group 2 gives comparable satisfaction results with biting force value within the normal range; thus, it might be used as a treatment option in a specific situation. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-11T17:52:33Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-dfaf0ccd920e40eca77f35936d8efb6c |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2057-4347 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-11T17:52:33Z |
| publishDate | 2023-10-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Clinical and Experimental Dental Research |
| spelling | doaj.art-dfaf0ccd920e40eca77f35936d8efb6c2023-10-18T03:37:29ZengWileyClinical and Experimental Dental Research2057-43472023-10-019581081910.1002/cre2.780Prospective evaluation of implants‐supported, tooth‐implant supported, and teeth‐supported 3‐unit posterior monolithic zirconia fixed restorations: Bite force and patient satisfactionSadeq Altayyar0Walid Al‐zordk1Radwan Algabri2Eshraq Rajah3Abdulsattar Al‐baadani4Ahmed Yaseen Alqutaibi5Manal Abo Madina6Mohammed H. Ghazy7Prosthodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry IBB University Ibb YemenFixed Prosthodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry Mansoura University Mansoura EgyptProsthodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry IBB University Ibb YemenProsthodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry Sana'a University Sana'a YemenFixed Prosthodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry Dhamar University Dhamar YemenDepartment of Prosthodontic and Implant Dentistry, College of Dentistry Taibah University Al Madinah Saudi ArabiaFixed Prosthodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry Mansoura University Mansoura EgyptFixed Prosthodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry Mansoura University Mansoura EgyptAbstract Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the maximum bite force (MBF) and satisfaction of patients restored with implants, combined tooth‐implants, and teeth‐supported monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Materials and Methods Thirty partially edentulous patients in need of three units of FDPs in their mandibular posterior region were divided into three equal groups (n = 10) as follows: Group‐1 patients received two implants for each at the second premolar and second molar regions, Group‐2 patients received one implant for each at the second molar region, and Group‐3 patients with missing lower first molar. All the restorations were constructed from monolithic zirconia. Patients were evaluated 1 week after placement of restorations (baseline) and then after 6, 12, and 24‐month intervals for MBF using force transducer occlusal force meter and satisfaction (function, esthetic, and overall satisfaction) using a visual analog scale. Results The mean MBF for Group 1 was higher than Group 2 (p = .044) but not that of Group 3 (p = .923). Additionally, Group 3 displayed a higher MBF than Group 2, although this difference was not statistically significant (p = .096). Concerning patient satisfaction, all study groups reported high levels of satisfaction across all satisfaction elements, and no significant differences were observed between the groups. Conclusion Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that Group 1 gives comparable anticipated treatment outcomes as Group 3 concerning biting force and patient satisfaction. However, Group 2 gives comparable satisfaction results with biting force value within the normal range; thus, it might be used as a treatment option in a specific situation.https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.780biting forceimplantmonolithic zirconiapatient satisfaction |
| spellingShingle | Sadeq Altayyar Walid Al‐zordk Radwan Algabri Eshraq Rajah Abdulsattar Al‐baadani Ahmed Yaseen Alqutaibi Manal Abo Madina Mohammed H. Ghazy Prospective evaluation of implants‐supported, tooth‐implant supported, and teeth‐supported 3‐unit posterior monolithic zirconia fixed restorations: Bite force and patient satisfaction Clinical and Experimental Dental Research biting force implant monolithic zirconia patient satisfaction |
| title | Prospective evaluation of implants‐supported, tooth‐implant supported, and teeth‐supported 3‐unit posterior monolithic zirconia fixed restorations: Bite force and patient satisfaction |
| title_full | Prospective evaluation of implants‐supported, tooth‐implant supported, and teeth‐supported 3‐unit posterior monolithic zirconia fixed restorations: Bite force and patient satisfaction |
| title_fullStr | Prospective evaluation of implants‐supported, tooth‐implant supported, and teeth‐supported 3‐unit posterior monolithic zirconia fixed restorations: Bite force and patient satisfaction |
| title_full_unstemmed | Prospective evaluation of implants‐supported, tooth‐implant supported, and teeth‐supported 3‐unit posterior monolithic zirconia fixed restorations: Bite force and patient satisfaction |
| title_short | Prospective evaluation of implants‐supported, tooth‐implant supported, and teeth‐supported 3‐unit posterior monolithic zirconia fixed restorations: Bite force and patient satisfaction |
| title_sort | prospective evaluation of implants supported tooth implant supported and teeth supported 3 unit posterior monolithic zirconia fixed restorations bite force and patient satisfaction |
| topic | biting force implant monolithic zirconia patient satisfaction |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.780 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT sadeqaltayyar prospectiveevaluationofimplantssupportedtoothimplantsupportedandteethsupported3unitposteriormonolithiczirconiafixedrestorationsbiteforceandpatientsatisfaction AT walidalzordk prospectiveevaluationofimplantssupportedtoothimplantsupportedandteethsupported3unitposteriormonolithiczirconiafixedrestorationsbiteforceandpatientsatisfaction AT radwanalgabri prospectiveevaluationofimplantssupportedtoothimplantsupportedandteethsupported3unitposteriormonolithiczirconiafixedrestorationsbiteforceandpatientsatisfaction AT eshraqrajah prospectiveevaluationofimplantssupportedtoothimplantsupportedandteethsupported3unitposteriormonolithiczirconiafixedrestorationsbiteforceandpatientsatisfaction AT abdulsattaralbaadani prospectiveevaluationofimplantssupportedtoothimplantsupportedandteethsupported3unitposteriormonolithiczirconiafixedrestorationsbiteforceandpatientsatisfaction AT ahmedyaseenalqutaibi prospectiveevaluationofimplantssupportedtoothimplantsupportedandteethsupported3unitposteriormonolithiczirconiafixedrestorationsbiteforceandpatientsatisfaction AT manalabomadina prospectiveevaluationofimplantssupportedtoothimplantsupportedandteethsupported3unitposteriormonolithiczirconiafixedrestorationsbiteforceandpatientsatisfaction AT mohammedhghazy prospectiveevaluationofimplantssupportedtoothimplantsupportedandteethsupported3unitposteriormonolithiczirconiafixedrestorationsbiteforceandpatientsatisfaction |