Sheraliyev Firdavs Isomiddin ugli (1), Islamova Nilufar Bustanovna (2)
Fixed prosthetic restorations represent a cornerstone in rehabilitating patients with partial tooth loss, aiming to restore masticatory function, aesthetics, and occlusal stability while preserving residual dentition and periodontal health. With the advent of advanced materials, CAD/CAM technology, and digital workflows, modern fixed prostheses offer improved precision, strength, and long-term predictability. This study evaluates the clinical effectiveness of contemporary fixed prosthetic restorations in partially edentulous patients, focusing on survival rates, complication profiles, periodontal outcomes, occlusal performance, and patient-reported satisfaction. Eighty patients received metal-ceramic, all-ceramic, or hybrid CAD/CAM-fabricated fixed prostheses restoring one to four missing teeth. Clinical follow-up over five years included assessments of marginal adaptation, abutment mobility, occlusal contacts, and radiographic bone levels. Results demonstrated survival rates exceeding 95%, minimal technical complications, and stable periodontal parameters. Patient-reported outcomes indicated high levels of functional comfort and aesthetic satisfaction. Findings highlight the effectiveness of modern fixed prostheses, emphasizing the importance of material selection, design optimization, and precision fabrication in achieving predictable clinical results.
1. Pjetursson BE, Sailer I, Zwahlen M, Hämmerle CH. “A systematic review of survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after 5 and 10 years.” Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18(Suppl 3): 73–85.
2. Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JY. “Clinical complications in fixed prosthodontics.” J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90:31–41.
3. Abduo J, Lyons K. “Clinical considerations for zirconia-based fixed prostheses.” J Prosthodont. 2012;21:263–270.
4. Zarone F, Ferrari M, Mangano F, et al. “CAD/CAM technologies in dental prosthetics: literature review.” J Prosthodont. 2011;20: 1–10.
5. Bindl A, Mörmann WH. “Strength and fracture resistance of all-ceramic FPDs.” Quintessence Int. 2005;36:567–579.
6. Rees JS. “Biomechanics of fixed partial dentures: connector dimensions and stress distribution.” J Prosthet Dent. 1997;78:131–138.
7. Sailer I, Makarov N, Thoma DS, Zwahlen M, Pjetursson BE. “All-ceramic and metal-ceramic reconstructions: a systematic review.” Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(Suppl 16): 139–152.
8. Esposito M, Hirsch J-M, Lekholm U, Thomsen P. “Biological and technical outcomes of fixed prosthetic restorations.” Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005;16: 1–16.
9. Kois JC. “Occlusal considerations in fixed prosthodontics: a clinical perspective.” Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2004;25:823–832.
10. Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls HR. “Phillips’ Science of Dental Materials.” 13th edition. Elsevier, 2018.
11. Guess PC, et al. “Connector design in all-ceramic FPDs: clinical and laboratory evaluation.” J Prosthodont. 2008;17:435–442.
12. Fages M, et al. “Finite element analysis in prosthodontics: evaluation of stress in FPDs.” Dent Mater. 2005;21:91–99.