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
  • [31] Comparison of the Load-bearing Capacities of Monolithic PEEK, Zirconia and Hybrid Ceramic Molar Crowns
    Tartuk, Bulent Kadir
    Ayna, Emrah
    Basaran, Emine Goncu
    MEANDROS MEDICAL AND DENTAL JOURNAL, 2019, 20 (01): : 45 - 50
  • [32] Retention strength of monolithic zirconia crowns cemented with different primer-cement systems
    Mohamed Shokry
    Walid Al-Zordk
    Mohamed Ghazy
    BMC Oral Health, 22
  • [33] Retention strength of monolithic zirconia crowns cemented with different primer-cement systems
    Shokry, Mohamed
    Al-Zordk, Walid
    Ghazy, Mohamed
    BMC ORAL HEALTH, 2022, 22 (01)
  • [34] Evaluation of the masking ability, marginal adaptation, and fracture resistance of screw-retained lithium disilicate implant-supported crowns cemented to titanium bases versus preparable abutments
    Kordi, Ahmad Waled Mohamad
    Salman, Abdallah Ibrahim
    Metwally, Nayrouz Adel
    Khamis, Mohamed Moataz
    BMC ORAL HEALTH, 2023, 23 (01)
  • [35] Effect of Titanium-Base Abutment Height on Optical Properties of Monolithic Anterior Zirconia Crowns
    Biadsee, Ameer
    Ozcan, Mutlu
    Masarwa, Lubaba
    Haddad, Mishel
    Al-Haj Husain, Nadin
    Ormianer, Zeev
    MATERIALS, 2022, 15 (21)
  • [36] Marginal fit of cemented and screw-retained crowns incorporated onto the ITI® Dental Implant System.
    Brägger, U
    Tosches, N
    Flury, K
    Lang, NP
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 1998, 77 : 901 - 901
  • [37] Fracture Resistance of Molar Crowns Fabricated with Monolithic All-Ceramic CAD/CAM Materials Cemented on Titanium Abutments: An In Vitro Study
    Dogan, Derya Ozdemir
    Gorler, Oguzhan
    Mutaf, Burcu
    Ozcan, Mutlu
    Eyuboglu, Gunes Bulut
    Ulgey, Melih
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS-IMPLANT ESTHETIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE DENTISTRY, 2017, 26 (04): : 309 - 314
  • [38] Evaluation of the masking ability, marginal adaptation, and fracture resistance of screw-retained lithium disilicate implant-supported crowns cemented to titanium bases versus preparable abutments
    Ahmad Waled Mohamad Kordi
    Abdallah Ibrahim Salman
    Nayrouz Adel Metwally
    Mohamed Moataz Khamis
    BMC Oral Health, 23
  • [39] Influence of manufacturing technique on the color of zirconia restorations: Monolithic versus layered crowns
    Manziuc, Manuela Maria
    Gasparik, Cristina
    Burde, Alexandru Victor
    Ruiz-Lopez, Javier
    Buduru, Smaranda
    Dudea, Diana
    JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC AND RESTORATIVE DENTISTRY, 2022, 34 (06) : 978 - 987
  • [40] EDENTULOUS ARCH TREATMENT WITH A CAD/CAM SCREW-RETAINED FRAMEWORK AND CEMENTED CROWNS: A CLINICAL CASE REPORT
    Baig, Mirza-Rustum
    Rajan, Gunaseelan
    Rajan, Manoj
    JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY, 2009, 35 (06) : 295 - 299