Quality Assessment of Prosthetic Rehabilitation Using Aesthetic Fixed Restorations

The objective of the research was to study and assess the quality of prosthetic treatment using aesthetic fixed restorations. Materials and methods. The study included 79 patients without a comorbidity who underwent prosthetic rehabilitation. All the patients were divided into 3 groups: Group I included 25 patients with metal-plastic restorations; Group II comprised 34 patients with porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations; Group III consisted of 20 patients with a combined occlusal surface of prosthetic restorations. The patients were observed 6 months after prosthetic repair. Only patients with single molar and premolar crowns were examined. Bridge prostheses were not taken into account in order to eliminate the effect of masticatory force redistribution on the abutment crowns. Results. In Group I, 11 (44%) patients were satisfied with the results of prosthetic treatment. In Group II, 25 (78.12%) patients reported that they were satisfied with their treatment. In Group III, there were 17 (85%) patients satisfied with their outcome. However, the patients’ complaints are often subjective and do not fully reflect the objective state of the dentoalveolar system. An objective examination revealed that in indirect restorations, marginal periodontium pathology is typical. Conclusions. Aesthetic fixed restorations with a combined occlusal surface have demonstrated good clinical results, even at long-term follow-up. Combining positive properties of two different construction materials, namely zirconium dioxide and ceramics, they reduce the risk of complications such as marginal periodontium pathology and chipping along the occlusal surface as well as contribute to minimal abrasion of the occlusal surfaces of the antagonistic teeth. We cannot recommend metal-plastic restorations due to their low clinical effectiveness, poor aesthetic qualities as well as a high level of marginal periodontium pathology