Prosthetic Materials Used for Implant-Supported Restorations and Their Biochemical Oral Interactions: A Narrative Review
- PMID: 35160962
- PMCID: PMC8839238
- DOI: 10.3390/ma15031016
Prosthetic Materials Used for Implant-Supported Restorations and Their Biochemical Oral Interactions: A Narrative Review
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to outline relevant elements regarding the biochemical interactions between prosthetic materials used for obtaining implant-supported restorations and the oral environment. Implant-supported prostheses have seen unprecedented development in recent years, benefiting from the emergence of both new prosthetic materials (with increased biocompatibility and very good mechanical behavior), and computerized manufacturing technologies, which offer predictability, accuracy, and reproducibility. On the other hand, the quality of conventional materials for obtaining implant-supported prostheses is acknowledged, as they have already proven their clinical performance. The properties of PMMA (poly (methyl methacrylate))-which is a representative interim material frequently used in prosthodontics-and of PEEK (polyether ether ketone)-a biomaterial which is placed on the border between interim and final prosthetic use-are highlighted in order to illustrate the complex way these materials interact with the oral environment. In regard to definitive prosthetic materials used for obtaining implant-supported prostheses, emphasis is placed on zirconia-based ceramics. Zirconia exhibits several distinctive advantages (excellent aesthetics, good mechanical behavior, biocompatibility), through which its clinical applicability has become increasingly wide. Zirconia's interaction with the oral environment (fibroblasts, osteoblasts, dental pulp cells, macrophages) is presented in a relevant synthesis, thus revealing its good biocompatibility.
Keywords: biochemical interactions; implant-supported restorations; prosthetic dental materials.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Figures
References
-
- Papaspyridakos P., Mokti M., Chen C.J., Benic G.I., Gallucci G.O., Chronopoulos V. Implant and prosthodontic survival rates with implant fixed complete dental prostheses in the edentulous mandible after at least 5 years: A systematic review. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2014;16:705–717. doi: 10.1111/cid.12036. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Moraschini V., Poubel L.A., Ferreira V.F., dos Barboza E.S.P. Evaluation of survival and success rates of dental implants reported in longitudinal studies with a follow-up period of at least 10 years: A systematic review. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2015;44:377–388. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2014.10.023. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Bornstein M.M., Halbritter S., Harnisch H., Weber H.P., Buser D. A retrospective analysis of patients referred for implant placement to a speciality clinic: Indications, surgical procedures and early failures. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2008;23:1109–1116. - PubMed
-
- Brägger U., Aeschlimann S., Bürgin W., Hämmerle C.H., Lang N.P. Biological and technical complications and failures with fixed partial dentures (FPD) on implants and teeth after four to five years of function. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2001;12:26–34. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012001026.x. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Pjetursson B.E., Brägger U., Lang N.P., Zwahlen M. Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs) Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2007;18((Suppl. 3)):97–113. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01439.x. - DOI - PubMed
Publication types
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
