American journal of translational research · 2025
Effects of different restorative materials on incisor root canal and crown restoration outcomes along with patient functional recovery.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Xie Zongyi, Yu Huabiao, Guo Hongli, Li Chengrui, Zhang Zhengyu
Аннотация
AIMS: To compare the clinical outcomes of incisor residual root and crown restorations using precious metal porcelain crowns (PMPC) versus zirconia all-ceramic crowns (ZACC), with a focus on gingival health, dental aesthetics, functional recovery, and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL).
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 218 adult patients who underwent incisor restoration with at least 1 year of follow-up (91 PMPC, 127 ZACC). Gingival health was evaluated by plaque, gingival, and bleeding indices, as well as probing depth, and gingival fluid volume. Dental aesthetics were assessed by color matching, gloss, and patient satisfaction. Functional recovery was examined by bite force, and OHRQoL was measured using the Oral Health Impact Profile-14. Restoration quality and integrity were evaluated during follow-up.
RESULTS: Both groups showed significant improvement in gingival health, with ZACC demonstrating superior reductions in plaque, gingival, and bleeding indices, and gingival fluid volume. ZACC also achieved better color matching, gloss consistency, and higher patient satisfaction with aesthetics. Bite force recovery was consistently greater in the ZACC group. OHRQoL improved in both groups, but gains were more pronounced with ZACC. At six months, ZACC showed a higher rate of excellent restorations and fewer poor outcomes. At one year, no significant differences were observed between groups in crown durability, loss, or secondary caries.
CONCLUSION: Compared with PMPC, ZACC offer provides greater benefits in gingival health, aesthetics, functional recovery, and OHRQoL compared, while both materials show comparable long-term durability and complication rates.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 218 adult patients who underwent incisor restoration with at least 1 year of follow-up (91 PMPC, 127 ZACC). Gingival health was evaluated by plaque, gingival, and bleeding indices, as well as probing depth, and gingival fluid volume. Dental aesthetics were assessed by color matching, gloss, and patient satisfaction. Functional recovery was examined by bite force, and OHRQoL was measured using the Oral Health Impact Profile-14. Restoration quality and integrity were evaluated during follow-up.
RESULTS: Both groups showed significant improvement in gingival health, with ZACC demonstrating superior reductions in plaque, gingival, and bleeding indices, and gingival fluid volume. ZACC also achieved better color matching, gloss consistency, and higher patient satisfaction with aesthetics. Bite force recovery was consistently greater in the ZACC group. OHRQoL improved in both groups, but gains were more pronounced with ZACC. At six months, ZACC showed a higher rate of excellent restorations and fewer poor outcomes. At one year, no significant differences were observed between groups in crown durability, loss, or secondary caries.
CONCLUSION: Compared with PMPC, ZACC offer provides greater benefits in gingival health, aesthetics, functional recovery, and OHRQoL compared, while both materials show comparable long-term durability and complication rates.