Retrospective study about the success of fixed prosthetic restorations made of different types of dental materials

Objectives. Analysis of a group with oral rehabilitation patients with different types of fixed protected restorations, to correlate the therapeutic success rate with the type of aggregation of restorations and with the materials used to fabricate them. Material and methods. The study material was represented by the medical records of one group of the patients with various types of partial edentation. The interest data were collected and were processed with Microsoft Excel statistics from the Office 365 package. Results. The group included: 162 patients (59.56%) with 182 fixed prosthetic restorations with teeth aggregation (of which 106 metal-ceramic restorations, 33 metal-composite restorations, 22 restorations from zirconium with ceramic and 21 all-ceramic restorations) and 110 patients (40.44%) with 140 fixed prosthetic restorations with implant aggregation (72 metal-ceramic restorations, 5 metal-composite restorations, 36 zirconium-ceramic restorations and 27 all-ceramic restorations). Complications detected 3 years after the completion of prosthetic treatment were classified into biological and technical complications. Discussions. In the analyzed group, the metal-ceramic prosthetic restorations were numerically superior to those of integral ceramics or zirconium oxide and ceramics, but we also noticed the presence of metal-composite restorations, preferred by certain categories of patients for economic reasons. In our study we identified 21 technical complications and 19 biological complications. Conclusions. In the group analyzed retrospectively, the therapeutic success rate at 3 years was 87.58%. Metal-ceramic restorations were the main way of rehabilitation applied to edentulous patients. Metal-composite restorations had the highest percentage failure rate, and all-ceramic restorations had the lowest percentage failure rate. The failure rate for prosthetic restorations with teeth aggregation was 14.83%, and the failure rate for restorations with implant aggregation was 9.29%. In order to validate the results obtained, it is necessary to extend the study to larger groups of patients, dispensed for longer periods of time.