Cemented vs screw-retained zirconia-based single implant reconstructions: A 3-year prospective randomized controlled clinical trial

被引:20
|
作者
Kraus, Riccardo D. [1 ]
Epprecht, Alyssa [1 ]
Hammerle, Christoph H. F. [1 ]
Sailer, Irena [2 ]
Thoma, Daniel S. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Zurich, Ctr Dent Med, Clin Fixed & Removable Prosthodont & Dent Mat Sci, Plattenstr 11, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland
[2] Univ Geneva, Univ Clin Dent Med, Div Fixed Prosthodont & Biomat, Geneva, Switzerland
关键词
biologic complications; cemented; ceramic abutments; implant abutments; screw-retained; single crowns; technical complications; zirconia; ALL-CERAMIC CROWNS; 11-YEAR FOLLOW-UP; TITANIUM ABUTMENTS; BENDING MOMENTS; AESTHETIC COMPLICATIONS; SURVIVAL RATE; RESTORATIONS; CONNECTIONS; RELIABILITY; PERFORMANCE;
D O I
10.1111/cid.12735
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objectives The objective of the present randomized clinical trial was to test whether or not the use of screw-retained all ceramic implant-borne reconstructions results in clinical, technical, and biologic outcomes similar to those obtained with cemented all ceramic reconstructions. The hypothesis was that there is no difference in clinical, technical, and biological parameters between the two types of retention. Materials and Methods Forty-four patients randomly received 20 cemented reconstruction (CR) and 24 screw-retained (SR) all ceramic single crowns on two-piece dental implants with nonmatching implant-abutment junctions. All patients were recalled after crown insertion, at 6 months, 1 year, as well as at 3 years. At these visits, biological and radiographic evaluations were performed. Technical outcomes were assessed using modified USPHS (United States Public Health Service) criteria. Data were statistically analyzed with Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon and Fisher exact tests. Results During 3 years of follow-up, eight patients (18.2%) lost the reconstruction due to technical (6 patients, 13.6%, 2 CR and 4 SR group) or biological complications (2 patients, 4.5%, only CR group). Thirty-two subjects with 18 SR and 14 CR reconstructions attended the FU-3Y, whereas four patients (9.1%, 2 SR, 2 CR) were not available (drop-outs). Biological, technical, and radiographic outcomes did not differ significantly between the groups (P > 0.05). One implant (2.3%) was lost in the CR group. One more cemented crown (2.3%) had to be removed because of peri-implant disease. Six patients (13.6%) lost the reconstructions due to a fracture of the zirconia abutment (4 SR, 2 CR). The mean marginal bone level at 3 years was -0.4 mm (-0.5; -0.3) in group SR and - 0.4 mm (-0.6; -0.3) group CR (P = 0.864). Conclusions At 3 years, CR and SR exhibited similar survival technical, biological and radiographic outcomes. The rate of technical complications was high in both groups.
引用
收藏
页码:578 / 585
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Cemented versus screw-retained zirconia-based single-implant restorations: 5-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial
    Lamperti, Sofia T.
    Wolleb, Karin
    Haemmerle, Christoph H. F.
    Jung, Ronald E.
    Huesler, Juerg
    Thoma, Daniel S.
    [J]. CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2022, 33 (04) : 353 - 361
  • [2] 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.
    [J]. CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2022, 33 (05) : 537 - 547
  • [3] 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.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, 2019, 32 (02) : 174 - 176
  • [4] 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.
    [J]. CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2024,
  • [5] 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
    [J]. CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2019, 23 (03) : 1067 - 1075
  • [6] 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
    [J]. Clinical Oral Investigations, 2019, 23 : 1067 - 1075
  • [7] Cemented versus screw-retained posterior implant-supported single crowns: A 24-month randomized controlled clinical trial
    Wolfart, Stefan
    Rittich, Anne
    Gross, Karin
    Hartkamp, Oliver
    von der Stueck, Annabelle
    Raith, Stefan
    Reich, Sven
    [J]. CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2021, 32 (12) : 1484 - 1495
  • [8] Clinical, radiographic, and immunological evaluation of angulated screw-retained and cemented single-implant crowns in the esthetic region: A 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial
    Lv, Xiao-Lei
    Qian, Shu-Jiao
    Qiao, Shi-Chong
    Gu, Ying-Xin
    Lai, Hong-Chang
    Shi, Jun-Yu
    [J]. CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2021, 23 (05) : 692 - 702
  • [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] Cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns: a 10-year randomised controlled trial
    Vigolo, Paolo
    Mutinelli, Sabrina
    Givani, Andrea
    Stellini, Edoardo
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY, 2012, 5 (04) : 355 - 364