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

被引:10
|
作者
Dini, Caroline [1 ]
Borges, Guilherme Almeida [1 ]
Costa, Raphael Cavalcante [1 ]
Magno, Marcela Barauna [2 ]
Maia, Lucianne Cople [2 ]
Ricardo Barao, Valentim Adelino [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Estadual Campinas, Piracicaba Dent Sch, Dept Prosthodont & Periodontol, UNICAMP, Av Limeira 901, BR-13414903 Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
[2] Fed Univ Rio de Janeiro UFRJ, Dept Pediat Dent & Orthodont, Rua Rodolpho Paulo Rocco,Cidade Univ, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil
关键词
cemented; dental implants; implant abutments; screw-retained; single crowns; zirconia; MARGINAL BONE LOSS; SOFT-TISSUE; FRACTURE-RESISTANCE; PERFORMANCE; RECONSTRUCTIONS; SUCCESS; COLOR; COMPLICATIONS; THICKNESS; SURVIVAL;
D O I
10.1111/clr.13824
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objectives To evaluate the peri-implant tissue changes and esthetic outcomes of cemented and screw-retained crowns of single-tooth implants in the esthetic zone using zirconia abutments. Material and methods An electronic search was performed on nine databases. The risk-of-bias was assessed by the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized (RoB 2) and non-randomized (ROBINS-I) clinical trials. Marginal bone level change, soft tissue thickness, bleeding on probing, probing depth, survival rates of implants and crowns, complications, plaque and papilla indexes, and pink esthetic score data were extracted and analyzed. The certainty of evidence was accessed through the GRADE approach. Results Nine records were included and 7 were used in the meta-analyses. Screw-retained crowns presented greater marginal bone level change (MD -0.04 [-0.08, -0.00] p = 0.04, I-2 = 0%) compared to cemented crowns up to 1-year. At 3 and 4 years no significant differences (p > 0.05) were observed. Soft tissue thickness did not differ between groups (p > 0.05). The bleeding on probing was higher in cemented group than in screw-retained crowns at 1-year (MD 0.17 [0.08, 0.27] p = 0.0005, I-2 = 0%), at medium-term periods (3 and 4 years) no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) were observed for this outcome. Probing depth, survival rates of implants and crowns, complications, and plaque index, as well as esthetic analysis using the papilla index and pink esthetic score did not differ statistically (p > 0.05) between both retention systems at short and medium-term periods. Conclusion The connection system considering zirconia abutments presented no influence on peri-implant parameters and esthetics evaluation for medium-term periods (3 and 4 years).
引用
收藏
页码:1143 / 1158
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] CEMENTED AND SCREW-RETAINED IMPLANT-SUPPORTED RESTORATIONS MAY HAVE A COMPARABLE RISK FOR PERI-IMPLANT MUCOSITIS AND PERI-IMPLANTITIS
    Majid, Omer Waleed
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE-BASED DENTAL PRACTICE, 2024, 24 (01)
  • [2] Alternative technique for investing abutments for screw-retained implant-supported restorations
    Ganddini, MR
    Tallents, RH
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2004, 92 (05): : 504 - 505
  • [3] 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
    [J]. Clinical Oral Investigations, 2017, 21 : 1953 - 1959
  • [4] 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
    [J]. CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2017, 21 (06) : 1953 - 1959
  • [5] 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
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2016, 115 (04): : 419 - 427
  • [6] Peri-implant bone loss in cement- and screw-retained prostheses: Systematic review and meta-analysis
    de Brandao, Marcelo L.
    Vettore, Mario V.
    Vidigal Junior, Guaracilei M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 2013, 40 (03) : 287 - 295
  • [7] Peri-implant mucosal response to implant-supported overdentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Baskaradoss, Jagan Kumar
    Geevarghese, Amrita
    Baig, Mirza Rustum
    [J]. GERODONTOLOGY, 2021, 38 (01) : 27 - 40
  • [8] A TECHNIQUE FOR FABRICATING SINGLE SCREW-RETAINED IMPLANT-SUPPORTED INTERIM CROWNS IN CONJUNCTION WITH IMPLANT SURGERY
    McRory, M. Eric
    Cagna, David R.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2014, 111 (06): : 455 - 459
  • [9] Fracture resistance of implant-supported screw-retained zirconia-based molar restorations
    Honda, Junichi
    Komine, Futoshi
    Kamio, Shingo
    Taguchi, Kohei
    Blatz, Markus B.
    Matsumura, Hideo
    [J]. CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2017, 28 (09) : 1119 - 1126
  • [10] Long-Term Outcome of Cemented Versus Screw-Retained Implant-Supported Partial Restorations
    Nissan, Joseph
    Narobai, Demitri
    Gross, Ora
    Ghelfan, Oded
    Chaushu, Gavriel
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 2011, 26 (05) : 1102 - 1107