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
  • [41] Influence of the fixed implant-supported provisional phase on the esthetic final outcome of implant-supported crowns: 3-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial
    Furze, David
    Byrne, Ashley
    Alam, Sonia
    Bragger, Urs
    Wismeijer, Daniel
    Wittneben, Julia-Gabriela
    CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2019, 21 (04) : 649 - 655
  • [42] Prosthetic Complications of Single Screw-Retained Implant-Supported Metal-Ceramic Fixed Prostheses: A Retrospective Observational Study
    Palma-Carrio, Cristina
    Macconi, Andrea
    Rubert-Aparici, Andrea
    Vidal-Peiro, Paula
    Menendez-Nieto, Isabel
    Blaya-Tarraga, Juan Antonio
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2024, 2024
  • [43] Randomized controlled trial comparing immediate loading with conventional loading using cone-anchored implant-supported screw-retained removable prostheses: A 2-year follow-up clinical trial
    Bernard, Lauren
    Vercruyssen, Marjolein
    Vanderveken, Julie
    Coucke, Wim
    Quirynen, Marc
    Naert, Ignace
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2019, 121 (02): : 258 - 264
  • [44] Evaluation of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-supported restorations for marginal bone loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Araujo Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido
    de Souza Batista, Victor Eduardo
    de Faria Almeida, Daniel Augusto
    Santiago Junior, Joel Ferreira
    Verri, Fellippo Ramos
    Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2016, 115 (04): : 419 - 427
  • [45] Clinical performance and risk factors of all-ceramic screw-retained implant crowns in the posterior region based on a retrospective investigation
    Graf, Tobias
    Lyko, Alina
    Dahmer, Iulia
    Stimmelmayr, Michael
    Dieterich, Horst
    Aggstaller, Hans
    Gueth, Jan-Frederik
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2024, 35 (07) : 685 - 693
  • [46] Fracture resistance of implant-supported screw- versus cement-retained porcelain fused to metal single crowns: SEM fractographic analysis
    Zarone, Fernando
    Sorrentino, Roberto
    Traini, Tonino
    Di lorio, Donato
    Caputi, Sergio
    DENTAL MATERIALS, 2007, 23 (03) : 296 - 301
  • [47] Effect of primary versus secondary splinting impression techniques on the passive fit of screw-retained implant prosthesis: a randomized clinical trial
    Radwan Saleh Algabri
    Sadeq Ali Altayyar
    Hanan Omar Abo-Alrejal
    Ali Abdulghani Alsourori
    Dhafer Abdulwasea Alshaibani
    Marwa Hassan Mostafa
    Bulletin of the National Research Centre, 47 (1)
  • [48] Clinical evaluation and quantitative occlusal change analysis of posterior implant-supported all-ceramic crowns: A 3-year randomized controlled clinical trial
    Zhang, Yifan
    Wei, Donghao
    Tian, Jiehua
    Zhao, Yijiao
    Lin, Ye
    Di, Ping
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2023, 34 (11) : 1188 - 1197
  • [49] Single posterior implant-supported restorations fabricated using a scannable healing abutment versus a conventional scan body: A randomized controlled trial
    Ramadan, Rania E.
    Razek, Mahmoud Khamis Abdel
    Mohamed, Faten S.
    Fahmy, Rania A.
    Abd-Ellah, Mervat E.
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2024, 132 (04): : 755e1 - 755e10
  • [50] Clinical outcomes of implant- versus abutment-level connection in screw-retained fixed dental prostheses: A 5-year randomized controlled trial
    Toia, Marco
    Parpaiola, Andrea
    Stevanello, Nicole
    Tattan, Mustafa
    Saleh, Muhammad H. A.
    Ravida, Andrea
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2024, 35 (02) : 230 - 241