Aim/Purpose: The primary aim of this study was to examine the clinical performance of posterior monolithic single crowns in terms of failure or complications and the secondary aim was to assess the quality of these restorations according to the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Methods: Ιn a private dental clinic, 65 patients with need of posterior crowns were restored with monolithic zirconia crowns. All the restorations were evaluated 6 and 12 months after their cementation. The modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria and periodontal parameters were applied for the clinical evaluation of the crowns. Restorations with Alpha or Bravo rating were considered a success. Results: Descriptive statistics and nonparametric tests were used for statistical analysis. Sixty-five patients (mean age: 49.52) were restored with 65 monolithic zirconia crowns. No fracture of the restorations was recorded. The overall success rate was 98.5%. The clinical quality of all crowns was acceptable except for the marginal discoloration of one crown at the 6- and 12-month follow-up examination. Conclusions: In this study, no fracture of single-tooth monolithic crowns occurred and the success rate was high. Monolithic zirconia restorations fabricated is a viable option for the restoration of single posterior teeth.
1 January 2019 in Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry
Aggressive periodontitis (AgP) represents an uncommon but rapidly advanced inflammatory process, which involves the destruction of periodontal tissues. This study aimed to report a case of generalized AgP (GAgP), where the treatment approach consists of the utilization of the full-mouth disinfection protocol (FMDP) in conjunction with flap curettage and regenerative appliance of enamel matrix derivatives (EMDs). The associated literature was also reviewed. A 19-year-old female patient was diagnosed with GAgP. The treatment was initiated with FMDP and administration of antibiotics. Afterward, open flap debridement was performed, and EMD was selected as the regenerative material for the reconstruction of the periodontal defects. Over an 11-year period and during all the phases of the treatment, the outcomes were regularly evaluated with clinical measurements and radiographic controls. The 11-year results demonstrated no recurrence of disease, and the patient's periodontal health exhibited evident improvement. Overall, the pocket depths presented satisfactory reduction while the clinical attachment loss (CAL) was improved. Both our limited experience and available literature data revealed that the use of EMD in AgP treatment contributes to bone fill of the intrabony defects as well as regeneration of the destructed periodontal apparatus. Although the outcomes of this treatment approach have not been widely evaluated, it seems that the use of EMD may be an effective means of periodontal regeneration in patients with GAgP. Additional prospective studies with adequate number of GAgP patients are essential to thoroughly assess the effectiveness of this approach.