Monolithic hybrid abutment crowns (screw-retained) versus monolithic hybrid abutments with adhesively cemented monolithic crowns

被引:9
|
作者
Naumann, Michael [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,7 ,8 ,9 ,10 ]
Scholz, Patricia [5 ]
Krois, Joachim [2 ,3 ,6 ]
Schwendicke, Falk [2 ,3 ,6 ]
Sterzenbach, Guido [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Happe, Arndt [5 ]
机构
[1] Charite Univ Med Berlin, Dept Prosthodont Geriatr Dent & Craniomandibular D, Berlin, Germany
[2] Free Univ Berlin, Berlin, Germany
[3] Humboldt Univ, Berlin, Germany
[4] Berlin Inst Hlth, Berlin, Germany
[5] Univ Hosp Ulm, Ctr Dent Oral & Maxillofacial Med, Clin Dent Prosthet, Ulm, Germany
[6] Charite Univ Med Berlin, Dept Oral Diagnost, Digital Hlth & Hlth Serv Res, Berlin, Germany
[7] Charite Univ Med Berlin, Dept Prosthodont Geriatr Dent & Craniomandibular D, Assmannshauser Str 4-6, D-14197 Berlin, Germany
[8] Free Univ Berlin, Assmannshauser Str 4-6, D-14197 Berlin, Germany
[9] Humboldt Univ, Assmannshauser Str 4-6, D-14197 Berlin, Germany
[10] Berlin Inst Hlth, Assmannshauser Str 4-6, D-14197 Berlin, Germany
关键词
clinical trial; implant-borne restoration; monolithic lithium disilicate; randomized controlled trial; titanium base; PERI-IMPLANT DISEASE; EXCESS CEMENT; HEALTH; RISK;
D O I
10.1111/clr.14031
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
ObjectivesThe objective of this study is to compare monolithic hybrid abutment crowns (screw-retained) versus monolithic hybrid abutments with adhesively cemented monolithic single-tooth crowns. Materials and MethodsTwenty subjects in need of an implant-borne restoration were randomly assigned to receive either a cement-retained (CRR) or a screw-retained (SRR) implant-supported monolithic lithium disilicate (LS2) reconstruction. Each patient received a titanium implant with in internal conic connection. After osseointegration and second-stage surgery, healing abutments were placed for about 10 days. The type of restoration (CRR vs. SRR) was randomly assigned, and the restorations were manufactured of monolithic LS2. Both types of restorations, CRR and SRR, were based on a titanium component (Ti-base) that was bonded to the abutment (CRR) or the crown (SRR). The follow-up period for all restoration was 36 months. Clinical outcome was evaluated according to Functional Implant Prosthetic Score (FIPS). Quality of live (OHIP) and patient's satisfaction were assessed using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Primary endpoint was loss of restoration for any reason. Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed and log-rank testing was performed (p < .05). ResultsOne restoration of group CRR failed after 6 months due to loss of adhesion between Ti-base and individual abutment. No further biological or technical failures occurred. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant difference between both treatment options (p = .317). There was no statistically significant difference between both types of restoration, neither for FIPS, OHIP, treatment time nor patient satisfaction (p > .05). ConclusionMonolithic hybrid abutment crowns (screw-retained) and monolithic hybrid abutment with adhesively cemented monolithic crowns using lithium disilicate showed no statistically significant difference for implant-based reconstructions in this pilot RCT setting.
引用
收藏
页码:209 / 220
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Monolithic Hybrid Abutment Crowns (Screw-Retained) Versus Monolithic Hybrid Abutments With Monolithic Crowns (Adhesively Cemented): Three-Year Data of a Prospective Clinical Split-Mouth Study
    Naumann, Michael
    Happe, Arndt
    Holtkamp, Agnes
    Blender, Sarah M.
    JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC AND RESTORATIVE DENTISTRY, 2025, 37 (01) : 126 - 141
  • [2] The use of monolithic lithium disilicate for posterior screw-retained implant crowns
    Mobilio, Nicola
    Catapano, Santo
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2017, 118 (06): : 703 - 705
  • [3] Mechanical Stability of Screw-Retained Monolithic and Bi-Layer Posterior Hybrid Abutment Crowns after Thermomechanical Loading: An In Vitro Study
    Spitznagel, Frank A.
    Bonfante, Estevam A.
    Campos, Tiago M. B.
    Vollmer, Maximilian A.
    Boldt, Johannes
    Doerken, Sam
    Gierthmuehlen, Petra C.
    MATERIALS, 2021, 14 (24)
  • [4] Fatigue Loading Test on Screw-Retained Lithium Disilicate Crowns Adhesively Cemented on Titanium Abutment
    Filtchev, Dimitar
    Stoeva, Daniela
    Trifkovic, Branka
    Jevremovic, Danimir
    Iliev, Georgi
    CRYSTALS, 2022, 12 (04)
  • [5] Monolithic Screw-Retained Lithium Disilicate Implant Crowns: Preliminary Data of a Prospective Cohort Study
    Gierthmuehlen, Petra C.
    Berger, Leonie
    Spitznagel, Frank A.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, 2020, 33 (03) : 272 - 276
  • [6] In Vitro Fatigue and Fracture Load of Monolithic Ceramic Crowns Supported by Hybrid Abutment
    Nawafleh, Noor
    Elshiyab, Shareen
    Ochsner, Andreas
    George, Roy
    OPEN DENTISTRY JOURNAL, 2021, 15 : 664 - 671
  • [7] The influence of the restorative material on the mechanical behavior of screw-retained hybrid-abutment-crowns
    Yazigi, Christine
    Kern, Matthias
    Chaar, Mohamed Sad
    Libecki, Wojtek
    Elsayed, Adham
    JOURNAL OF THE MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS, 2020, 111 (111)
  • [8] Fracture resistance of implant- supported monolithic crowns cemented to zirconia hybrid-abutments: zirconia-based crowns vs. lithium disilicate crowns
    Elshiyab, Shareen H.
    Nawafleh, Noor
    Ochsner, Andreas
    George, Roy
    JOURNAL OF ADVANCED PROSTHODONTICS, 2018, 10 (01): : 65 - 72
  • [9] Marginal discrepancy of screw-retained and cemented metal-ceramic crowns on implant abutments
    Keith, SE
    Miller, BH
    Woody, RD
    Higginbottom, FL
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 1999, 14 (03) : 369 - 378
  • [10] Influence of monolithic restorative materials on the implant- abutment interface of hybrid abutment crowns: An in vitro investigation
    Graf, Tobias
    Schweiger, Josef
    Stimmelmayr, Michael
    Erdelt, Kurt
    Schubert, Oliver
    Gueth, Jan-Frederik
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTIC RESEARCH, 2023, 67 (03) : 450 - 459