Prosthetic complications with monolithic or micro‐veneered implant‐supported zirconia single‐unit, multiple‐unit, and complete‐arch prostheses on titanium base abutments: A single center retrospective study with mean follow‐up period of 72.35 months
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The influence of prosthetic design on prosthetic complications when monolithic or micro-veneered zirconia prostheses are supported with titanium base (ti-base) abutments is not well-known. PURPOSE: The purpose of this single center, retrospective study was to assess the prevalence of prosthetic complications with monolithic or micro-veneered single-unit, multi-unit, and complete-arch zirconia prostheses supported with ti-base abutments (implant level or multi-unit abutment level). MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study retrospectively evaluated the electronic health record (EHR) of participants who received either monolithic or micro-veneered implant-supported single-unit, multi-unit, and/or complete-arch prostheses supported by ti-base or zirconia-ti-base hybrid abutments delivered between the years 2010 and 2021. Data were analyzed by using logistic regression and Exact Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test (α = 0.05) to assess the clinical performance of prostheses and complications including crown decementation, feldspathic porcelain chipping, prosthesis fracture, zirconia-ti-base hybrid abutment decementation, abutment screw loosening, screw fracture, abutment fracture, implant loss, and prosthesis remake. RESULTS: The study included 94 participants (50 female, 44 male) with a mean age of 59.5 years (range: 24-101 years of age). The retrospective EHR evaluation yielded 82 single-unit, 51 multi-unit, and 20 complete-arch prostheses on 325 implants. Among 153 prostheses delivered, 108 were micro-veneered (47 single-unit, 41 multi-unit, and 20 complete-arch prostheses) and 45 were monolithic. The average duration was 72.35 months (6.02 years) with a follow-up period of 5-132 months. From the time of insertion to the time of EHR review, of 153 prostheses, 78.43% did not exhibit any prosthetic complication. However, 33 prostheses (21.57%) from 29 participants (30.85%) had at least one prosthetic complication. Only four patients (4.25%) experienced two or more prosthetic complications. Prosthetic design affected the probability of having a complication (p = 0.005); complete-arch prostheses had higher probability (p ≤ 0.028). Single-unit prostheses had lower probability of complication than multi-unit prostheses (p = 0.005). The most commonly observed complication was fracture of veneering material (5.88%) followed by prosthetic screw loosening (4.57%) and decementation between the zirconia and the ti-base abutment (2.61%). Micro-veneered complete-arch prostheses had higher probability of having chipping than that of not having (p < 0.001), and other micro-veneered prosthetic designs had similar probability of chipping with that of complete-arch prostheses (p ≥ 0.082). Frequency of chipping was affected by veneering (p < 0.001). Monolithic prostheses had lower probability of chipping than micro-veneered prostheses, regardless of the prosthetic design (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of prosthetic complications varied depending on prosthetic design. Complete-arch prostheses had the highest probability of complications while the single-unit prostheses had the lowest. Micro-veneered prostheses had higher probability for chipping than monolithic prostheses. Probability of chipping was similar for micro-veneered single-unit, multi-unit, and complete-arch zirconia prostheses.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».