AK’s FDPs Summary (1) PDF - Dental Materials Comparison

Anfal Alkhaldi Here’s a detailed comparison of the materials Metal-Ceramic FDPs, Reinforced Glass- Ceramic FDPs (Lithium Disilicate), Glass-Infiltrated Alumina FDPs, and Densely Sintered Zirconia FDPs based on their 5-year survival rates, failure rates, and complications drawn from multiple studies:...

Anfal Alkhaldi Here’s a detailed comparison of the materials Metal-Ceramic FDPs, Reinforced Glass- Ceramic FDPs (Lithium Disilicate), Glass-Infiltrated Alumina FDPs, and Densely Sintered Zirconia FDPs based on their 5-year survival rates, failure rates, and complications drawn from multiple studies: 1. Metal-Ceramic FDPs - 5-Year Survival Rate: 94.4% (95% CI: 91.2–96.5%). - Annual Failure Rate: 1.15%. - Complications: - Framework Fractures: Extremely low at 0.6%, making them very durable and reliable. - Caries on Abutments: Relatively low at 1.2%, indicating minimal biological complications. - Periodontal Disease: 0.3%. - Loss of Retention: 2.1%, with a five-year failure rate of 2.9%, better than most other materials. - Ceramic Fractures: 5.0%, making it one of the lowest rates for ceramic-related issues. - Best Use: - Long-span FDPs and posterior restorations due to superior durability. - Considered the gold standard for its high strength and reliability, especially in high- stress regions. - Key Features: - Known for being the most durable and reliable option, with low technical and biological complication rates. - Very low framework fracture rates (0.6%), making it the best material for long-term stability. - Slightly higher rates of ceramic fractures (5%) but still among the lowest in all categories. -Highest durability and low failure rate. - Considered the gold standard for durability and stability, with minimal technical complications. 2. Reinforced Glass-Ceramic FDPs (Lithium Disilicate) - 5-Year Survival Rate: 89.1% (95% CI: 80.4–94.0%). - Annual Failure Rate: 2.31%. - Complications: - Framework Fractures: Higher than metal-ceramic at 8.0%, indicating a higher susceptibility to fractures. - Caries on Abutments: One of the lowest rates at 0.5%, making it a good option for patients with high caries risk - Periodontal Disease: 2.9%. - Loss of Retention: 2.9%, with an overall 5-year failure rate of 2.9%. - Ceramic Fractures: 6.5%, slightly higher than metal-ceramic but within acceptable limits. - Best Use: - Known for superior esthetics, it is ideal for anterior restorations where appearance is important. - A good choice for patients requiring short-span FDPs, especially where esthetics is the priority - Key Features: - O ers excellent esthetic results, making it ideal for anterior restorations where appearance is important. - Higher fracture rate (8.0%) compared to metal-ceramic, making it less durable in high- stress areas. - Lower rates of caries and periodontal issues (0.5% and 2.9%) compared to other materials, but more prone to fractures. - Best used for single crowns or smaller FDPs where stress is lower. -Known for superior esthetics, making it ideal for anterior restorations. -Higher risk of fractures compared to metal-ceramic, making it less suitable for posterior regions where stress is greater. 3. Glass-Infiltrated Alumina FDPs - 5-Year Survival Rate: 86.2% (95% CI: 69.3–94.2%). - Annual Failure Rate: 2.97%. - Complications: - Framework Fractures: The highest of all materials at 12.9%, indicating a very high failure rate in high-stress applications. - Caries on Abutments: Moderate at 2.0%, with a high susceptibility to periodontal complications (7.6%). - Periodontal Disease: 7.6%. - Loss of Retention: 2.6%, translating into a 5-year failure rate of 7.6%. - Ceramic Fractures: 6.6%, with high chipping issues. - Best Use: - Suitable for short-span anterior restorations, where lower stress and high esthetics are required. - Not recommended for high-stress posterior regions due to high fracture rates. - Key Features: - Least reliable material due to high framework fracture rates (12.9%) and high complication rates. - Highest rate of periodontal disease (7.6%) and higher risks of abutment tooth fractures compared to others. - Lower survival rates make it a less favorable choice for long-term restorations. - Recommended only for short-span FDPs and single restorations, particularly in low- stress areas. -The least durable with the highest fracture rates, especially unsuitable for stress- bearing situations. -Higher biological complications such as caries and periodontal issues. 4. Densely Sintered Zirconia FDPs - 5-Year Survival Rate: 90.4% (95% CI: 84.8–94.0%). - Annual Failure Rate: 2.02%. - Complications: - Framework Fractures: Low, at 1.9%, demonstrating good durability. - Caries on Abutments: Highest among all materials at 3.2%, with a tendency for secondary caries due to marginal fit. - Periodontal Disease: 0.5%. - Loss of Retention: The highest at 6.2%, translating into a 5-year failure rate of 14.5%. - Ceramic Fractures: 14.5%, the highest among all, making it less favorable for highly esthetic zones. - Best Use: - Strong and ideal for posterior restorations, especially in load-bearing areas. - Higher fracture rates make it less reliable in esthetic regions, but its strength is ideal for long-span FDPs. - Key Features: - Known for its strength and high resistance to forces, especially in posterior restorations. - However, ceramic fractures (14.5%) are much more frequent, making it less reliable for aesthetic applications compared to metal-ceramic or lithium disilicate. - Higher caries rate on abutments (3.2%) compared to other materials, which might be a concern for long-term maintenance. - Best for full-contour crowns and bridges in posterior and load-bearing areas. -High strength and resistance, making it a good choice for posterior restorations. -Higher risk of ceramic fractures, making it less ideal for anterior esthetic regions. Key Comparative Insights: - Survival Rates: Metal-ceramic FDPs lead with a 94.4% survival rate, followed by zirconia at 90.4%, lithium disilicate at 89.1%, and glass-infiltrated alumina at 86.2%. - Fracture Rates: Glass-infiltrated alumina has the highest fracture rate (12.9%), while metal-ceramic o ers the lowest at 0.6%. Zirconia has a high ceramic fracture rate of 14.5%, making it less reliable for esthetic zones. - Esthetics vs. Durability: - Lithium disilicate and zirconia provide better esthetics but come with higher fracture risks. - Metal-ceramic remains the most durable, especially in high-stress areas, providing an optimal balance of durability and performance. - Complications: - Metal-ceramic has the fewest complications, making it ideal for long-term restorations. - Zirconia FDPs show a higher rate of ceramic fractures and loss of retention, while glass- infiltrated alumina has the highest failure rates due to both framework fractures and biological complications. - Best Long-Term Material: Metal-ceramic FDPs o er the highest 5-year survival (94.4%) and the lowest failure rates across all categories, making it the best choice for durability and long-term performance. - Esthetics vs. Durability: While lithium disilicate o ers superior esthetics, it has higher failure rates due to framework fractures (8.0%) compared to metal-ceramic (0.6%). It is more suited for anterior regions where esthetics are critical. - High Risk of Failure: Glass-infiltrated alumina has the highest framework fracture rate (12.9%) and poorest 5-year survival (86.2%), making it the least reliable option, especially in stress-bearing situations. - Zirconia: O ers a good balance of strength and esthetics but has a high rate of ceramic fractures (14.5%), which can impact long-term success in aesthetic zones. -Survival: Metal-ceramic FDPs have the highest survival rate (94.4%), followed by zirconia FDPs (90.4%), lithium disilicate FDPs (89.1%), and glass-infiltrated alumina FDPs (86.2%). -Fracture rates: Glass-infiltrated alumina FDPs had the highest framework fracture rate (12.9%), while metal-ceramic FDPs showed the lowest (0.6%). -Esthetics vs. Durability: While lithium disilicate and zirconia o er better esthetics, metal- ceramic FDPs still provide the best balance of durability and performance.