Cemented versus screw-retained posterior implant-supported single crowns: A 24-month randomized controlled clinical trial

被引:14
|
作者
Wolfart, Stefan [1 ]
Rittich, Anne [1 ]
Gross, Karin [1 ]
Hartkamp, Oliver [1 ]
von der Stueck, Annabelle [1 ]
Raith, Stefan [1 ,2 ]
Reich, Sven [1 ]
机构
[1] RWTH Univ Hosp, Dept Prosthodont & Biomat, Pauwelsstr 30, D-52074 Aachen, Germany
[2] Clin Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Aachen, Germany
关键词
bone implant interactions; clinical research; clinical trials; material sciences; prosthodontics; soft tissue-implant interactions; CONSENSUS REPORT; RESTORATIONS; DISEASES; RECONSTRUCTIONS; ABUTMENTS; WORKSHOP;
D O I
10.1111/clr.13849
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objectives To compare the incidence of biological and technical complications of cemented and screw-retained monolithic lithium-disilicate implant-supported posterior single crowns. Material and Methods Forty-one subjects with a total of 56 implants received randomly allocated 28 cemented and 28 screw-retained crowns. In the screw-retained group, monolithic lithium-disilicate restorations were luted to titanium bases extraorally. In the cemented group, monolithic lithium-disilicate crowns were cemented on individualized titanium abutments intraorally. All restorations were examined according to modified FDI criteria within 2 weeks of inserting the crowns (baseline) and after 12 (n = 46) and 24 (n = 43) months. Bone loss was evaluated by standardized radiographs at baseline and 12 months. Results After 12 months, the incidence of mucositis (positive bleeding on probing) was 14.2% (screw-retained) and 17.9% (cement-retained). The gingival and plaque index and a mean marginal bone loss between 0.03-0.15 mm showed no significant difference between the groups. In the cemented group, cement residues were detected at baseline at two restorations (6.9%) by radiographic examination. A complete digital workflow was realized in most cases (85.7%). At 24 months, no restoration had failed, and no chipping of the ceramic had occurred. In the screw-retained group, screw loosening occurred in one implant. In both groups, there was obvious deterioration in the quality of 32% of the occlusal and of 18% of the proximal contact points. Conclusions The type of retention mode of monolithic implant-retained lithium-disilicate posterior crowns had no influence on the biological and technical complication rate.
引用
下载
收藏
页码:1484 / 1495
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] 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
  • [2] 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
  • [3] Cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns: a 10-year randomised controlled trial
    Vigolo, Paolo
    Mutinelli, Sabrina
    Givani, Andrea
    Stellini, Edoardo
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY, 2012, 5 (04) : 355 - 364
  • [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] 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
  • [6] A 7.5-year randomized controlled clinical study comparing cemented and screw-retained one-piece zirconia-based implant-supported single crowns
    Kraus, Riccardo D.
    Hjerppe, Jenni
    Naenni, Nadja
    Balmer, Marc
    Jung, Ronald E.
    Thoma, Daniel S.
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2024,
  • [7] 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
  • [8] 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
  • [9] Porcelain Fracture Resistance of Screw-Retained, Cement-Retained, and Screw-Cement-Retained Implant-Supported Metal Ceramic Posterior Crowns
    Al-Omari, Wael M.
    Shadid, Rola
    Abu-Naba'a, Layla
    El Masoud, Bilal
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS-IMPLANT ESTHETIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE DENTISTRY, 2010, 19 (04): : 263 - 273
  • [10] Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing Cemented Versus Screw-Retained Single Crowns on Customized Zirconia Abutments: 3-Year Results
    Heierle, Linda
    Wolleb, Karin
    Haemmerle, Christoph H. F.
    Wiedemeier, Daniel B.
    Sailer, Irena
    Thoma, Daniel S.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, 2019, 32 (02) : 174 - 176