Full Arch Material Comparison
Selecting the right material for full arch restorations depends on factors including aesthetics, strength requirements, vertical space, patient habits, and budget. This comparison covers monolithic zirconia, titanium frameworks, PMMA provisionals, and metal-acrylic hybrids with evidence-based selection criteria to help dental professionals make informed material choices.
| Property | Zirconia | Titanium | PMMA | Hybrid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flexural Strength | 1200+ MPa | 900 MPa | 80 MPa | 900 MPa |
| Fracture Risk | Very Low | Very Low | Moderate | Low |
| Aesthetics | Excellent | Good | Good | Very Good |
| Repairability | Difficult | Easy | Very Easy | Easy |
| Weight | Moderate | Light | Very Light | Light |
| Min. Vertical Space | 12mm | 8mm | 10mm | 10mm |
| Wear on Opposing | High | Low | Very Low | Low |
| Longevity | 15-20+ years | 20+ years | 6-12 months | 15+ years |
| Cost Range | $$$ | $$$ | $ | $$ |
| Best Use Case | Final aesthetic | Bruxers | Provisional | Balance |
| Stain Resistance | Excellent | N/A | Moderate | Good |
| Biocompatibility | Excellent | Excellent | Good | Excellent |
Selection FAQs
Which material is best for bruxers?
Monolithic zirconia or titanium frameworks with composite overlay are preferred for bruxers due to superior fracture resistance. Layered porcelain should be avoided due to chipping risk.
What is the cost difference between materials?
PMMA is most economical (provisional), followed by titanium-acrylic hybrid, then monolithic zirconia, with layered zirconia being the premium option.
How does vertical space affect material choice?
Limited vertical space (<12mm) favors titanium frameworks with thin composite or monolithic zirconia. Layered restorations require minimum 15mm for proper porcelain support.
Material Pages