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
  • [21] 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
  • [22] Peri-implant and esthetic outcomes of cemented and screw-retained crowns using zirconia abutments in single implant-supported restorations-A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Dini, Caroline
    Borges, Guilherme Almeida
    Costa, Raphael Cavalcante
    Magno, Marcela Barauna
    Maia, Lucianne Cople
    Ricardo Barao, Valentim Adelino
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2021, 32 (10) : 1143 - 1158
  • [23] Factors Affecting the Decision to Use Cemented or Screw-Retained Fixed Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Critical Review
    Gomez-Polo, Miguel
    Ortega, Rocio
    Gomez-Polo, Cristina
    Celemin, Alicia
    Highsmith, Jaime Del Rio
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, 2018, 31 (01) : 43 - 54
  • [24] Aging and Fracture Resistance of Screw-Retained Implant-Supported Molar Crowns Fabricated from Lithium Disilicate Containing Virgilite
    Rauch, Angelika
    Schmid, Alois
    Schmidt, Michael Benno
    Schmutzler, Anne
    Hahnel, Sebastian
    Rosentritt, Martin
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, 2024, 37 (04) : 453 - 456
  • [25] Strain Development of Screw-Retained Implant-Supported Fixed Restorations: Procera Implant Bridge Versus Conventionally Cast Restorations
    Karl, Matthias
    Holst, Stefan
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, 2012, 25 (02) : 166 - 169
  • [26] Single Dental Implant Restoration: Cemented or Screw-Retained? A Systematic Review of Multi-Factor Randomized Clinical Trials
    Fiorillo, Luca
    D'Amico, Cesare
    Ronsivalle, Vincenzo
    Cicciu, Marco
    Cervino, Gabriele
    PROSTHESIS, 2024, 6 (04): : 871 - 886
  • [27] CEMENTED AND SCREW-RETAINED IMPLANT-SUPPORTED RESTORATIONS MAY HAVE A COMPARABLE RISK FOR PERI-IMPLANT MUCOSITIS AND PERI-IMPLANTITIS
    Majid, Omer Waleed
    JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE-BASED DENTAL PRACTICE, 2024, 24 (01)
  • [28] Effect of Abutment Screw Design and Crown/Implant Ratio on Preload Maintenance of Single-Crown Screw-Retained Implant-Supported Prostheses
    Rodrigues, Isabela
    Zanardi, Piero
    Sesma, Newton
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 2019, 34 (06) : 1397 - 1403
  • [29] 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
  • [30] Immediate Loading of Implant-Supported Single Crowns after Conventional and Ultrasonic Implant Site Preparation: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
    Stacchi, Claudio
    Lombardi, Teresa
    Baldi, Domenico
    Bugea, Calogero
    Rapani, Antonio
    Perinetti, Giuseppe
    Itri, Angelo
    Carpita, David
    Audenino, Guido
    Bianco, Giuseppe
    Verardi, Simone
    Carossa, Stefano
    Schierano, Gianmario
    BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, 2018, 2018