Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 977–985 | Cite as

Five-year prospective clinical study of posterior three-unit zirconia-based fixed dental prostheses

  • Roberto SorrentinoEmail author
  • Giorgio De Simone
  • Stefano Tetè
  • Simona Russo
  • Fernando Zarone
Original Article


This prospective clinical trial aimed at evaluating the clinical performance of three-unit posterior zirconia fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after 5 years of clinical function. Thirty-seven patients received 48 three-unit zirconia-based FDPs. The restorations replaced either a premolar or a molar. Specific inclusion criteria were needed. Tooth preparation was standardized. Computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacturing frameworks with a 9-mm2 cross section of the connector and a 0.6-mm minimum thickness of the retainer were made. The restorations were luted with resin cement. The patients were recalled after 1, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months. The survival and success of the ceramics and zirconia were evaluated. The technical and aesthetic outcomes were examined using the United States Public Health Service criteria. The biologic outcomes were analyzed at abutment and contralateral teeth. Descriptive statistics were performed. All FDPs completed the study, resulting in 100% cumulative survival rate and 91.9% and 95.4% cumulative success rates for patients wearing one and two FDPs, respectively. No losses of retention were recorded. Forty-two restorations were rated alpha in all measured parameters. A minor chipping of the ceramics was detected in three restorations. No significant differences between the periodontal parameters of the test and control teeth were observed. Five-year clinical results proved that three-unit posterior zirconia-based FDPs were successful in the medium term for both function and aesthetic. Zirconia can be considered a promising substitute of metal frameworks for the fabrication of short-span posterior prostheses.


Zirconia All ceramic Prosthodontics Fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) 



The authors would like to thank Nobel Biocare for supporting the present research and the dental laboratory “Estetica Dentale” by Mr. Ugo Castaldo (Naples, Italy) for the technical support.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    McLean JW (2001) Evolution of dental ceramics in the twentieth century. J Prosthet Dent 85:61–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tsumita M, Kokubo Y, Ohkubo C, Sakurai S, Fukushima S (2010) Clinical evaluation of posterior all-ceramic FPDs (Cercon): a prospective clinical pilot study. J Prosthodont Res 54:102–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vult von Steyern P, Carlson P, Nilner K (2005) All-ceramic fixed partial dentures designed according to the DC-Zirkon technique. A 2-year clinical study. J Oral Rehabil 32:180–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sailer I, Gottnerb J, Kanelb S, Hammerle CH (2009) Randomized controlled clinical trial of zirconia-ceramic and metal-ceramic posterior fixed dental prostheses: a 3-year follow-up. Int J Prosthodont 22:553–560PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sadan A, Blatz MB, Lang B (2005) Clinical considerations for densely sintered alumina and zirconia restorations: part 1. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 25:213–219PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sadan A, Blatz MB, Lang B (2005) Clinical considerations for densely sintered alumina and zirconia restorations: part 2. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 25:343–349PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eschbach S, Wolfart S, Bohlsen F, Kern M (2009) Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic posterior three-unit FDPs made of In-Ceram Zirconia. Int J Prosthodont 22:490–492PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Raigrodski AJ, Chiche GJ, Potiket N, Hochstedler JL, Mohamed SE, Billiot S, Mercante DE (2006) The efficacy of posterior three-unit zirconium-oxide-based ceramic fixed partial dental prostheses: a prospective clinical pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 96:237–244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Christel P, Meunier A, Heller M, Torre JP, Peille CN (1989) Mechanical properties and short-term in-vivo evaluation of yttrium-oxide-partially-stabilized zirconia. J Biomed Mater Res 23:45–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rimondini L, Cerroni L, Carrassi A, Torricelli P (2002) Bacterial colonization of zirconia ceramic surfaces: an in vitro and in vivo study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 17:793–798PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scarano A, Piattelli M, Caputi S, Favero GA, Piattelli A (2004) Bacterial adhesion on commercially pure titanium and zirconium oxide disks: an in vivo human study. J Periodontol 75:292–296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ernst CP, Cohnen U, Stender E, Willershausen B (2005) In vitro retentive strength of zirconium oxide ceramic crowns using different luting agents. J Prosthet Dent 93:551–558PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chai J, Chu FC, Chow TW, Liang BM (2007) Chemical solubility and flexural strength of zirconia-based ceramics. Int J Prosthodont 20:587–595PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Beuer F, Edelhoff D, Gernet W, Sorensen JA (2009) Three-year clinical prospective evaluation of zirconia-based posterior fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Clin Oral Investig 13:445–451PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Odman P, Andersson B (2001) Procera AllCeram crowns followed for 5 to 10.5 years: a prospective clinical study. Int J Prosthodont 14:504–509PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fradeani M, D'Amelio M, Redemagni M, Corrado M (2005) Five-year follow-up with Procera all-ceramic crowns. Quintessence Int 36:105–113PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vult von Steyern P (2005) All-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Studies on aluminium oxide- and zirconium dioxide-based ceramic systems. Swed Dent J Suppl 173:1–69PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zarone F, Sorrentino R, Vaccaro F, Russo S, De Simone G (2005) Retrospective clinical evaluation of 86 Procera AllCeram anterior single crowns on natural and implant-supported abutments. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 7(Suppl 1):S95–S103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pjetursson BE, Sailer I, Zwahlen M, Hämmerle CH (2007) A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic reconstructions after an observation period of at least 3 years. Part I: single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res 18(Suppl 3):73–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sorrentino R, Galasso L, Tetè S, De Simone G, Zarone F (2009) Clinical evaluation of 209 all-ceramic single crowns cemented on natural and implant-supported abutments with different luting agents: a 6-year retrospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00251.x
  21. 21.
    Creugers NH, Käyser AF, van 't Hof MA (1994) A meta-analysis of durability data on conventional fixed bridges. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 22:448–452PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scurria MS, Bader JD, Shugars DA (1998) Meta-analysis of fixed partial denture survival: prostheses and abutments. J Prosthet Dent 79:459–464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marquardt P, Strub JR (2006) Survival rates of IPS empress 2 all-ceramic crowns and fixed partial dentures: results of a 5-year prospective clinical study. Quintessence Int 37:253–259PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Esquivel-Upshaw JF, Young H, Jones J, Yang M, Anusavice KJ (2008) Four-year clinical performance of a lithia disilicate-based core ceramic for posterior fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont 21:155–160PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vult von Steyern P, Jönsson O, Nilner K (2001) Five-year evaluation of posterior all-ceramic three-unit (In-Ceram) FPDs. Int J Prosthodont 14:379–384PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Suárez MJ, Lozano JF, Paz Salido M, Martínez F (2004) Three-year clinical evaluation of In-Ceram Zirconia posterior FPDs. Int J Prosthodont 17:35–38PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Esquivel-Upshaw JF, Anusavice KJ, Young H, Jones J, Gibbs C (2004) Clinical performance of a lithia disilicate-based core ceramic for three-unit posterior FPDs. Int J Prosthodont 17:469–475PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sailer I, Fehér A, Filser F, Gauckler LJ, Lüthy H, Hämmerle CH (2007) Five-year clinical results of zirconia frameworks for posterior fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont 20:383–388PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Molin MK, Karlsson SL (2008) Five-year clinical prospective evaluation of zirconia-based Denzir 3-unit FPDs. Int J Prosthodont 21:223–227PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wolfart S, Harder S, Eschbach S, Lehmann F, Kern M (2009) Four-year clinical results of fixed dental prostheses with zirconia substructures (Cercon): end abutments vs. cantilever design. Eur J Oral Sci 117:741–749PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Roediger M, Gersdorff N, Huels A, Rinke S (2010) Prospective evaluation of zirconia posterior fixed partial dentures: four-year clinical results. Int J Prosthodont 23:141–148PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schmitter M, Mussotter K, Rammelsberg P, Stober T, Ohlmann B, Gabbert O (2009) Clinical performance of extended zirconia frameworks for fixed dental prostheses: two-year results. J Oral Rehabil 36:610–615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tan K, Pjetursson BE, Lang NP, Chan ES (2004) A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 15:654–666PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tinschert J, Schulze KA, Natt G, Latzke P, Heussen N, Spiekermann H (2008) Clinical behavior of zirconia-based fixed partial dentures made of DC-Zirkon: 3-year results. Int J Prosthodont 21:217–222PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fischer J, Stawarczyk B, Hammerle CH (2008) Flexural strength of veneering ceramics for zirconia. J Dent 36:316–321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Aboushelib MN, Kleverlaan CJ, Feilzer AJ (2008) Effect of zirconia type on its bond strength with different veneer ceramics. J Prosthodont 17:401–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zarone F, Sorrentino R, Traini T, Di lorio D, Caputi S (2007) Fracture resistance of implant-supported screw- versus cement-retained porcelain fused to metal single crowns: SEM fractographic analysis. Dent Mater 23:296–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Larsson C, Holm L, Lövgren N, Kokubo Y, Vult von Steyern P (2007) Fracture strength of four-unit Y-TZP FPD cores designed with varying connector diameter. An in-vitro study. J Oral Rehabil 34:702–709PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bahat Z, Mahmood DJ, Vult von Steyern P (2009) Fracture strength of three-unit fixed partial denture cores (Y-TZP) with different connector dimension and design. Swed Dent J 33:149–159PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Oh WS, Anusavice KJ (2002) Effect of connector design on the fracture resistance of all-ceramic fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 87:536–542PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto Sorrentino
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Giorgio De Simone
    • 1
  • Stefano Tetè
    • 2
  • Simona Russo
    • 1
  • Fernando Zarone
    • 1
  1. 1.University “Federico II” of NaplesNaplesItaly
  2. 2.University “G. D’Annunzio” of ChietiChietiItaly
  3. 3.NaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations