Ceramic-veneered zirconia frameworks in full-arch implant rehabilitations: A 6-month to 5-year retrospective cohort study

Purpose: This was a retrospective cohort study designed to evaluate the clinical performance of ceramicveneered zirconia frameworks. Materials and Methods: Patients were recruited according to defined inclusion criteria. All patients were checked every 4 months from the time of definitive rehabilitation. At the end of 2013, all patients were rescheduled and rechecked for study purposes. The restorative procedures assessment was performed by previously established methods. The primary outcomes were the survival and success rates of the prosthesis. Descriptive statistics were used for the patient's demographics, implant distribution, and occurrence of complications. To study the survival and success of the prostheses, a Cox Regression analysis was used with a model constructed in a forward conditional stepwise mode. Predictive variables were included in the model, and adjusted survival curves were obtained for each outcome. Results: From 2008 to 2013, 75 patients were rehabilitated with 92 implant-supported, screw-retained, full-arch ceramic-veneered zirconia framework rehabilitations. The range of follow-up was between 6 months and 5 years. From the 92 full implant-supported screw-retained full-arch rehabilitations, Cox regression analysis indicated that within a 5-year time frame, the probability of framework fracture, major chipping, minor chipping, or any of the former combined to occur was 17.6%, 46.5%, 69.2%, and 90.5%, respectively. Conclusion: Results suggest zirconia as a suitable material for framework structure in implant-supported, full-arch rehabilitations. However, it experiences a high incidence of technical complications, mainly due to ceramic chipping. Further clinical studies should aim to ascertain the effects of clinical features and manufacturing procedures on the survival rates of these prostheses. © 2016 by Quintessence Publishing Co Inc.

Comparison of 1-year outcome in patients with severe aorta stenosis treated conservatively or by aortic valve replacement or by percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve implantation (data from a multicenter Spanish registry)

The factors that influence decision making in severe aortic stenosis (AS) are unknown. Our aim was to assess, in patients with severe AS, the determinants of management and prognosis in a multicenter registry that enrolled all consecutive adults with severe AS during a 1-month period. One-year follow-up was obtained in all patients and included vital status and aortic valve intervention (aortic valve replacement [AVR] and transcatheter aortic valve implantation [TAVI]). A total of 726 patients were included, mean age was 77.3 ± 10.6 years, and 377 were women (51.8%). The most common management was conservative therapy in 468 (64.5%) followed by AVR in 199 (27.4%) and TAVI in 59 (8.1%). The strongest association with aortic valve intervention was patient management in a tertiary hospital with cardiac surgery (odds ratio 2.7, 95% confidence interval 1.8 to 4.1, p <0.001). The 2 main reasons to choose conservative management were the absence of significant symptoms (136% to 29.1%) and the presence of co-morbidity (128% to 27.4%). During 1-year follow-up, 132 patients died (18.2%). The main causes of death were heart failure (60% to 45.5%) and noncardiac diseases (46% to 34.9%). One-year survival for patients treated conservatively, with TAVI, and with AVR was 76.3%, 94.9%, and 92.5%, respectively, p <0.001. One-year survival of patients treated conservatively in the absence of significant symptoms was 97.1%. In conclusion, most patients with severe AS are treated conservatively. The outcome in asymptomatic patients managed conservatively was acceptable. Management in tertiary hospitals is associated with valve intervention. One-year survival was similar with both interventional strategies.