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
  • [31] Screw-retained monolithic zirconia vs. cemented porcelain-fused-to-metal implant crowns: a prospective randomized clinical trial in split-mouth design
    Weigl, Paul
    Saarepera, Kristina
    Hinrikus, Kristina
    Wu, Yanyun
    Trimpou, Georgia
    Lorenz, Jonas
    CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2019, 23 (03) : 1067 - 1075
  • [32] Screw-retained monolithic zirconia vs. cemented porcelain-fused-to-metal implant crowns: a prospective randomized clinical trial in split-mouth design
    Paul Weigl
    Kristina Saarepera
    Kristina Hinrikus
    Yanyun Wu
    Georgia Trimpou
    Jonas Lorenz
    Clinical Oral Investigations, 2019, 23 : 1067 - 1075
  • [33] Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial of Primary Molar Crowns: 24-Month Results
    Donly, Kevin J.
    Sasa, Issa
    Contreras, Claudia Isabel
    Mendez, Maria Jose Cervantes
    PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY, 2018, 40 (04) : 253 - 258
  • [34] Immediate Loading of Screw-Retained All-Ceramic Crowns in Immediate Versus Delayed Single Implant Placement
    Vandeweghe, Stefan
    Nicolopoulos, Costa
    Thevissen, Eric
    Jimbo, Ryo
    Wennerberg, Ann
    De Bruyn, Hugo
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, 2013, 26 (05) : 458 - 464
  • [35] In vitro performance and fracture resistance of pressed or CAD/CAM milled ceramic implant-supported screw-retained or cemented anterior FDPs
    Zacher, Julian
    Bauer, Robert
    Krifka, Stephanie
    Rosentritt, Martin
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTIC RESEARCH, 2021, 65 (02) : 208 - 212
  • [36] Early histological, microbiological, radiological, and clinical response to cemented and screw-retained all-ceramic single crowns
    Thoma, Daniel S.
    Wolleb, Karin
    Bienz, Stefan P.
    Wiedemeier, Daniel
    Hammerle, Christoph H. F.
    Sailer, Irena
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2018, 29 (10) : 996 - 1006
  • [37] Effect of screw access channel on the fracture rate of lithium disilicate cement-retained implant-supported posterior crowns
    Khamis, Mohamed Moataz
    Zakaria, Niveen Hazem
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2022, 127 (04): : 618 - 625
  • [38] Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial to Compare Posterior Implant-Supported Modified Monolithic Zirconia and Metal-Ceramic Single Crowns: One-Year Results
    Cheng, Chih-Wen
    Chien, Chia-Hui
    Chen, Chun-Jung
    Papaspyridakos, Panos
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS-IMPLANT ESTHETIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE DENTISTRY, 2019, 28 (01): : 15 - 21
  • [39] An Alternative Design to Overcome the Problem of Unfavorable Implant Angulations for a Screw-Retained, Implant-Supported Fixed Prosthesis: Two Clinical Reports
    Chatzistavrianou, Despoina
    Shahdad, Shakeel
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS-IMPLANT ESTHETIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE DENTISTRY, 2015, 24 (07): : 589 - 593
  • [40] Resistance to Fracture in Fixed Dental Prostheses Over Cemented and Screw-Retained Implant-Supported Zirconia Cantilevers in the Anterior Region: An In Vitro Study
    Rues, Stefan
    Kappel, Stefanie
    Ruckes, Dorothee
    Rammelsberg, Peter
    Zenthoefer, Andreas
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 2020, 35 (03) : 521 - 529