Presentation Category
Literature Review
Introduction/Context/Diagnosis
Objectives: 1. Compare the basic properties of Zirconia and Porcelain-Fused-to-Metal (PFM) in dental prostheses. 2. Assess the rates of technical complications like fracture, chipping and biological outcomes between Zirconia and PFM prosthesis. 3. Investigate the survival rates of Zirconia-based fixed dental prosthesis (FDPs) versus PFM FDPs. 4. Evaluate the suitability of Zirconia and PFM for long-span bridges, considering strength, durability, aesthetics and its effects. Methods: 1. Conducted systematic research on peer-reviewed articles from websites such as embase, pubMed, google scholar and ovid medline comparing Zirconia Vs PFM. 2. Selected studies evaluating mechanical properties, aesthetics, biocompatibility, clinical outcomes and survival rates. 3. Extracted data on biological outcomes, technical outcomes, and survival rates from selected studies. 4. Analyzed data to identify trends and differences between materials in prosthesis as well as in long span bridges. Results: Zirconia exhibits superior mechanical properties and biocompatibility as compared to PFM prosthesis. Limited long-term data is available for the long-span FDPs, however, existing evidence suggests somewhat similar 10-year survival rates in both zirconia as well as PFM. Despite the similarity, zirconia emerged as a promising PFM alternative with superior mechanical properties, durability, and aesthetics. Regardless of the material if the prosthesis is >5 units, it is inevitably associated with higher technical complication rates as compared to the shorter span bridges. Conclusion: While requiring more long-term data, Zirconia long-span FDPs displayed comparable 10-year survival rates as PFM with zirconia being a slightly better option for longer span bridges due to its great strength, durability, and aesthetics. Acknowledgements: We acknowledge researchers and institutions contributing to this analysis. We also extend our deepest gratitude to UOP’s faculty for their tremendous support, teaching & continuous guidance.
Location
Arthur A Dugoni School of Dentistry, 155 5th St, San Francisco, CA 94103, USA
Format
Presentation
Zirconia VS PFM in Long Span Bridges
Arthur A Dugoni School of Dentistry, 155 5th St, San Francisco, CA 94103, USA
Objectives: 1. Compare the basic properties of Zirconia and Porcelain-Fused-to-Metal (PFM) in dental prostheses. 2. Assess the rates of technical complications like fracture, chipping and biological outcomes between Zirconia and PFM prosthesis. 3. Investigate the survival rates of Zirconia-based fixed dental prosthesis (FDPs) versus PFM FDPs. 4. Evaluate the suitability of Zirconia and PFM for long-span bridges, considering strength, durability, aesthetics and its effects. Methods: 1. Conducted systematic research on peer-reviewed articles from websites such as embase, pubMed, google scholar and ovid medline comparing Zirconia Vs PFM. 2. Selected studies evaluating mechanical properties, aesthetics, biocompatibility, clinical outcomes and survival rates. 3. Extracted data on biological outcomes, technical outcomes, and survival rates from selected studies. 4. Analyzed data to identify trends and differences between materials in prosthesis as well as in long span bridges. Results: Zirconia exhibits superior mechanical properties and biocompatibility as compared to PFM prosthesis. Limited long-term data is available for the long-span FDPs, however, existing evidence suggests somewhat similar 10-year survival rates in both zirconia as well as PFM. Despite the similarity, zirconia emerged as a promising PFM alternative with superior mechanical properties, durability, and aesthetics. Regardless of the material if the prosthesis is >5 units, it is inevitably associated with higher technical complication rates as compared to the shorter span bridges. Conclusion: While requiring more long-term data, Zirconia long-span FDPs displayed comparable 10-year survival rates as PFM with zirconia being a slightly better option for longer span bridges due to its great strength, durability, and aesthetics. Acknowledgements: We acknowledge researchers and institutions contributing to this analysis. We also extend our deepest gratitude to UOP’s faculty for their tremendous support, teaching & continuous guidance.
Comments/Acknowledgements
Presentation Category: IDS: First Year Literature Review