Cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns: a 10-year randomised controlled trial

被引:0
|
作者
Vigolo, Paolo [1 ]
Mutinelli, Sabrina
Givani, Andrea
Stellini, Edoardo [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Padua, Inst Clin Dent, Dept Clin Odontostomatol, Padua, Italy
关键词
cement-retained crowns; dental implants; screw-retained crowns; single implant-supported crowns; LONGITUDINAL CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; OSSEOINTEGRATED DENTAL IMPLANTS; UCLA-TYPE ABUTMENTS; IN-VITRO EVALUATION; ORAL IMPLANTS; FOLLOW-UP; RESTORATIONS; TITANIUM; REPLACEMENT; MULTICENTER;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Purpose: The purpose of this randomised controlled trial was to compare the long-term clinical outcome of cemented and screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns. Materials and methods: Eighteen consecutive patients presenting with single-tooth bilateral edentulous sites in the canine/molar region with adequate bone width, similar bone height at the implant sites, and an occlusal scheme that allowed for the establishment of identical occlusal cusp/fossa contacts were treated. Each patient received two identical implants according to a split-mouth design. One side was randomly selected to be restored with a cemented implant-supported single crown, and the other was restored with a screw-retained implant-supported single crown. Outcome measures were implant success, complications, marginal bone levels and pen-implant soft tissue health. Results: Ten years after initial loading, 2 patients moved away and were lost to follow-up. Two implants placed in the same patient failed 5 years after their insertion; the remaining 30 implants survived, resulting in a cumulative implant success rate of 93.7%. No complication occurred. The mean marginal bone resorption at 10 years after implant placement, measured on intraoral radiographs, was 1.1 +/- 0.2 mm for both types of restorations. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with respect to pen-implant marginal bone level at the 10-year follow-up appointment (T2) (P = 0.58); at the 4-year follow-up appointment (T1) a statistically significant difference was observed (P = 0.01), but this was not considered clinically relevant (mean difference: -0.06 mm). The status of the soft tissue around the implants remained stable over the evaluation period. No statistically significant difference was identified for the facial keratinised gingiva between the two groups at T1 (P = 0.10) or at T2 (P = 0.07). Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, the results indicate that there was no evidence of a significant difference in the clinical behaviour of the peri-implant marginal bone or of the pen-implant soft tissues when cemented or screw-retained single-tooth implant restorations were provided.
引用
收藏
页码:355 / 364
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns: a 4-year prospective clinical study
    Vigolo, P
    Givani, A
    Majzoub, Z
    Cordioli, G
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 2004, 19 (02) : 260 - 265
  • [2] Cemented versus screw-retained posterior implant-supported single crowns: A 24-month randomized controlled clinical trial
    Wolfart, Stefan
    Rittich, Anne
    Gross, Karin
    Hartkamp, Oliver
    von der Stueck, Annabelle
    Raith, Stefan
    Reich, Sven
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2021, 32 (12) : 1484 - 1495
  • [3] FEM evaluation of cemented-retained versus screw-retained dental implant single-tooth crown prosthesis
    Cicciu, Marco
    Bramanti, Ennio
    Matacena, Giada
    Guglielmino, Eugenio
    Risitano, Giacomo
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 2014, 7 (04): : 817 - 825
  • [4] Five-year randomized controlled clinical study comparing cemented and screw-retained zirconia-based implant-supported single crowns
    Kraus, Riccardo D.
    Espuelas, Catharina
    Hammerle, Christoph H. F.
    Jung, Ronald E.
    Sailer, Irena
    Thoma, Daniel S.
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2022, 33 (05) : 537 - 547
  • [5] Placing the single-tooth, screw-retained implant prosthesis
    Williamson, R
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION, 2000, 131 (06): : 810 - 811
  • [6] Clinical performance of screw-retained and cemented implant-supported zirconia single crowns: 36-month results
    Claudio Cacaci
    Friederike Cantner
    Thomas Mücke
    Peter Randelzhofer
    Jan Hajtó
    Florian Beuer
    Clinical Oral Investigations, 2017, 21 : 1953 - 1959
  • [7] Clinical performance of screw-retained and cemented implant-supported zirconia single crowns: 36-month results
    Cacaci, Claudio
    Cantner, Friederike
    Muecke, Thomas
    Randelzhofer, Peter
    Hajto, Jan
    Beuer, Florian
    CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2017, 21 (06) : 1953 - 1959
  • [8] A TECHNIQUE FOR FABRICATING SINGLE SCREW-RETAINED IMPLANT-SUPPORTED INTERIM CROWNS IN CONJUNCTION WITH IMPLANT SURGERY
    McRory, M. Eric
    Cagna, David R.
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2014, 111 (06): : 455 - 459
  • [9] A 10-YEAR RETROSPECTIVE COMPARATIVE HUMAN STUDY ON SCREW-RETAINED VERSUS CEMENTED DENTAL IMPLANT ABUTMENTS
    Sinjari, B.
    D'Addazio, G.
    Traini, T.
    Varvara, G.
    Scarano, A.
    Murmura, G.
    Caputi, S.
    JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL REGULATORS AND HOMEOSTATIC AGENTS, 2019, 33 (03): : 787 - 797
  • [10] Long-Term Outcome of Cemented Versus Screw-Retained Implant-Supported Partial Restorations
    Nissan, Joseph
    Narobai, Demitri
    Gross, Ora
    Ghelfan, Oded
    Chaushu, Gavriel
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 2011, 26 (05) : 1102 - 1107