Person:
Romeo Rubio, Marta

Profile Picture
First Name
Marta
Last Name
Romeo Rubio
URI
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/79871
Affiliation
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Faculty / Institute
Odontología
Department
Odontología Conservadora y Prótesis
Area
Estomatología
Identifiers
UCM identifierORCIDScopus Author IDDialnet IDGoogle Scholar ID

Filters

2020 - 20232
Reset filters

Settings

Subject: 615.46 ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Thermo-mechanical behavior of alternative material combinations for full-arch implant-supported hybrid prostheses with short cantilevers
    (Journal of Dentistry, 2023) Haroyan-Darbinyan, Evelina; Romeo Rubio, Marta; Río Highsmith, Jaime Del; Lynch, Christopher D.; Castillo De Oyague, Raquel
    Objectives: To compare the fracture resistance (FR) of three combinations of materials for full-arch maxillary implant-supported hybrid prostheses (HPs) with short cantilevers (≤ 10 mm). Methods: Maxillary HPs were fabricated and classified as follows (n = 5 each): Group-1 (CC-A, control): acrylic resin-veneered Co-Cr frameworks; Group-2 (CF-A): acrylic-resin-veneered carbon-fiber mesostructures; and Group-3 (CF-R): composite-resin-veneered carbon-fiber frames. Specimens were thermal-cycled (5,000 cycles; 5 ◦C–55 ◦C; dwell time: 30 s). Vertical loads were applied until failure, first at the 10-mm-long cantilever (LC), and, afterwards, at the anterior region (AR), using a universal testing machine (crosshead speed: 0.05 mm/s). The fracture pattern was assessed by stereomicroscope and SEM. The one-way ANOVA, the Bonferroni, and the in dependent samples t tests, were run (α= 0.05). Results: At LC, CF-A, and CC-A samples exhibited the highest FR values (p< 0.001), showing no differences to each other. At AR, CC-A specimens recorded the highest FR, followed by CF-A samples (p< 0.001). CF-R HPs displayed the lowest FR at both locations (p< 0.001). The only group with differences between the tested sites was the CC-A, the AR being more resistant (p< 0.001). Most CC-A and CF-A HPs failed cohesively. CF-R pros theses mainly failed adhesively. Conclusions: Maxillary HPs with short cantilevers (≤ 10 mm) made of Co-Cr or carbon-fiber veneered with acrylic resin demonstrated an adequate mechanical resistance (> 900 N). Clinical significance: For maxillary HPs with cantilevers up to 10 mm, acrylic-veneered carbon- fiber meso structures may be recommended, whereas coating carbon-fiber frames with composite resin seems not suitable.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Zirconia-ceramic versus metal-ceramic posterior multiunit tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    (JADA: The Journal of the American Dental Association, 2020) Limones, Álvaro; Molinero-Mourelle, Pedro; Azevedo, Luis; Romeo Rubio, Marta; Correia, André; Gómez Polo, Miguel Ángel
    Background The authors aimed to compare the survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic (ZC) versus metal-ceramic (MC) restorative material in multiunit tooth-supported posterior fixed dental prostheses (FDP). Types of Studies Reviewed The authors conducted a systematic search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with no time or language restrictions, up to May 2019 using the MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, followed by a manual search. Results The authors included 7 RCTs in the review and 5 RCTs in the meta-analysis. All studies had a low risk of bias. The authors included 330 participants (177 ZC and 173 MC tooth-supported FDP) in the meta-analysis, which revealed a medium-term survival rate of 95.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.5% to 99.1%) for ZC FDP compared with 96.9% (95% CI, 94.3% to 99.4%) for MC FDP, with no significant differences (P = .364). The biological or technical complications did not show statistically significant differences, except in the global ceramic veneering chipping analysis (P = .023; risk difference [RD], 22.3%; 95% CI, 3.0% to 41.6%) and their subanalysis: minor chipping or chipping that can be solved with polishing (P = .044; RD, 19.5%; 95% CI, 0.5% to 38.4%), and major chipping or chipping that needs repair in the laboratory (P = .023; RD, 6.0%; 95% CI, 0.8% to 11.3%). Conclusions and Practical Implications Posterior multiunit ZC restorations are considered a predictable treatment in the medium term, although they are slightly more susceptible to chipping of the veneering ceramic than MC restorations.