Dataset Information

Cemented versus screw-retained zirconia-based single-implant restorations: 5-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To compare cemented and screw-retained one-piece zirconia-based restorations in terms of clinical, radiographic, and technical outcomes 5 years after insertion.

Materials and methods

Thirty-four patients with single-tooth implants were randomly restored with either a cemented lithium disilicate crown on a one-piece customized zirconia abutment (CEM, 17 patients) or a screw-retained crown based on a directly veneered one-piece customized zirconia abutment (SCREW, 16 patients). All patients were recalled for a baseline examination (7-10 days after crown insertion) and then annually up to 5 years. The following outcomes were assessed: marginal bone level (changes), technical, and clinical (bleeding on probing, plaque control record, probing depth, and keratinized tissue) parameters. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used to assess differences between the two groups.

Results

At 5 years, 26 patients (13 in each group) were re-examined. The survival rates on the implant and restorative levels were 100% and 82.4% (equally for both groups), respectively. At 5 years, the median marginal bone level was located at -0.15 mm (IQR: -0.89 mm; 0.27 mm) (CEM) and -0.26 mm (IQR: -0.38 mm; 0.01 mm) (SCREW) below the implant shoulder (intergroup p = .9598). The median changes between baseline and the 5-year follow-up amounted to -0.23 mm (CEM; intragroup p = .0002) and -0.15 mm (SCREW; intragroup p = .1465) (intergroup p = .1690). The overall technical complication rate at 5 years was 15.4% (CEM) and 15.4% (SCREW) (intergroup p = 1.00). Clinical parameters remained stable over time (baseline to 5 years).

Conclusions

At 5 years, screw-retained and cemented restorations rendered largely the same clinical, technical, and radiographic outcomes. Technical complications were frequent in both groups.

SUBMITTER: Lamperti ST

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9305781 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Clinical studies regarding zirconia implant abutments reported good survival rates in the short-term observation period. The purpose of this study was to assess the six-year clinical performance of zirconia abutments supporting all-ceramic crowns in anterior and premolar regions. METHODS:The patients received zirconia implant abutments to support all-ceramic crowns in Chang-Gung Medical Center during the period August 2010 to August 2011 were enrolled. In the following six years of observation period after the implant-crown had finished, the clinical parameters of all of the included patients were registered on a special form. The records regarding the following variables: age, gender, implant location, the condition of edentulous site before implant placement, esthetic performance at baseline, presence or absence of technical complications, and biological outcomes were registered and scrutinized for evaluation. RESULTS:Out of the 32 zirconia implant abutments and 32 all-ceramic crowns that were followed for six years. Neither abutments nor crowns were lost, yielding 100% survival rates for both zirconia abutments and crowns. The esthetic outcomes were excellent except that a score of 2 was given to two restorations. With regard to technical complications, there was one instance of abutment screw loosening, two cases of veneering ceramic chipping, one restoration with occlusal roughness, and three instances of crowns loosening. Overall, the success rates were 96.8% and 81.2% for abutments and crowns respectively. In biological performance, only 1 implant was classified in group II (satisfactory survival) in the Misch classification, while all the others were classified in group I (excellent). CONCLUSIONS:Zirconia abutments supporting all-ceramic crowns demonstrated high survival rate, good biological and esthetic results. While some technical complications were frequently observed, the complication-free rates were 96.8% for abutments and 81.2% for crowns in the medium-term observation period.

Project description:ObjectivesWe evaluated the initial and follow-up treatment costs of different post-restorations in a practice-based German healthcare setting.MethodsA total of 139 incisors, canines, or premolars received post-restorations placed by eight general dental practitioners in Germany, and were followed over a mean ± SD 7.1 ± 4.5 years. Preformed metal (MP, n = 68), glass-fiber (GF, n = 28), or cast post-and-core buildups (MC, n = 23) had been used to retain crowns or bridge anchors. Preformed metal and glass-fiber had also been used to retain directly built up post-retained composite restorations (PC, n = 20). Material and treatment costs for the initial post-restorations as well as restorative, endodontic, or surgical re-treatments were estimated from a public-payer-perspective in Germany. Associations between total and annualized total costs and covariates were assessed using generalized linear modeling. The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00012938).ResultsMC showed highest initial treatment costs (557.23 Euro), but the least re-treatments (6/23, 26%), while PC showed lowest initial costs (203.52 Euro) but the most re-treatments (11/20, 55%). Costs for MP/GF post-crowns were initially similarly costly (496.47/496.87 Euro), and both also showed similar re-treatments (35%/36%). The overall annual failure rate was 5.2% (MC: 3.5%, MP: 4.6%, GF: 5.3%, PC: 10.3%). Including costs for the resulting re-treatments, mean total costs were 591.66 Euro (MC), 548.31 Euro (MP), 526.37 Euro (GF), and 361.81 Euro (PC). Annualized total costs were 171.36 Euro (MC), 141.75 Euro (MP), 146.12 Euro (GF), and 135.65 Euro (PC). Total and annualized total costs were highest for MC, with PC being the significantly less costly option (p < 0.001).ConclusionsWithin German healthcare, both initial and follow-up costs for post-restorations were considerable. Saving costs initially may, at least partially, be offset by more complications long-term.Clinical relevanceDentists need to be aware that the placement of posts is not only initially costly but also comes with significant long-term costs for treating occurring complications. This should be communicated with patients and considered during treatment planning.