Article Sidebar
Published:
Aug 10, 2022Keywords:
Article Details
Submission of a manuscript to this journal is a representation that the manuscript has not been published previously and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.
All authors named in each manuscript would be required to sign a form (to be supplied by the Editor) so that they may retain their copyright in the article but to assign to us (the Publishers) and its licensees in perpetuity, in all forms, formats and media (whether known or created in the future) to (i) publish, reproduce, distribute, display and store the contribution, (ii) translate the contribution into other languages, create adaptations, reprints, include within collections and create summaries, extracts and/or abstracts of the contribution, (iii) create any other derivative works(s) based on the contribution, (iv) to exploit all subsidiary rights in the contribution, (v) the inclusion of electronic links from the contribution to third party material where-ever it may be located, and (vi) license any thrid party to do any or all of the above.
Main Article Content
Short-term and long-term outcomes of zirconium dioxidebased dental restorations, and it effects on masticatory function
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the short- and long-term outcomes of zirconium dioxide-based restorations (ZDBR), and changes in masticatory function (MF).
Methods: One hundred and two (102) patients who received restorative dentistry procedures were divided into two groups using random number method: control group (CG, n = 52, alloy-based restorations) and study group (SG, n = 50, zirconium dioxide restorations). Treatment efficacy, quality, levels of IL-8 and IL-6 in gingival sulcus fluid, and satisfaction scores were compared.
Results: The SG showed better outcomes and restoration quality than CG. After restoration, SG showed greater decrease in IL-8 and IL-6 levels than CG (p < 0.05), while IL-8 and IL-6 levels were higher in SG and CG than those before restoration (p < 0.05). After 1 and 6 months of restoration, SG showed increased dental appearance satisfaction and a higher success rate than CG (p < 0.05). Occlusal force and MF were significantly improved in both groups (p < 0.05). Gingival index, bleeding index, plaque index, and tooth looseness after restoration significantly improved in both groups, but were lower in SG than in CG (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: In oral restorations, ZDBR is more effective in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes. Patients' occlusal force and MF are better restored, and patients' quality of life is also significantly improved. Therefore, ZDBR in oral restorations is feasible but further clinical trials are required.
