Dataset Information

Five-year randomized controlled clinical study comparing cemented and screw-retained zirconia-based implant-supported single crowns.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To compare screw-retained and cemented all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns regarding biological and technical outcomes over a 5-year observation period.

Materials and methods

In 44 patients, 44 two-piece dental implants were placed in single-tooth gaps in the esthetic zone. Patients randomly received a screw-retained (SR) or cemented (CR) all-ceramic single crown and were then re-examined annually up to 5 years. Outcome measures included: clinical, biological, technical, and radiographic parameters. Data were statistically analyzed with Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon, and Fisher's exact tests.

Results

During the observation period, three patients (6.8%) were loss to follow-up. Eight restorations (18.2%, CI (8.2%, 32.7%)) were lost due to technical (6 patients, 13.6% (CI (5.2%, 27.4%)), 2 CR and 4 SR group, intergroup p = .673; implants still present) or biological complications (2 patients, 4.5% (CI (0.6%, 16.5%)), only CR group, intergroup p = .201, both implants lost). This resulted in a survival rate of 81.2% (CI (65.9%, 90.1%)) on the restorative level (18 SR; 15 CR, 3 lost to follow-up). At the 5-year follow-up, the median marginal bone levels were located slightly apical relative to the implant shoulder with 0.4 mm (0.5; 0.3) (SR) and 0.4 mm (0.8; 0.3) (CR) (intergroup p = .582). Cemented restorations demonstrated a significantly higher biological complication rate (36.8%, SR: 0.0%; intergroup p = .0022), as well as a significantly higher overall complication rate (68.4%, SR: 22.7%, intergroup p = .0049). All other outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups (p > .05).

Conclusions

All-ceramic single-tooth restorations on two-piece dental implants resulted in a relatively low survival rate. Cemented restorations were associated with a higher biological and overall complication rate than screw-retained restorations.

SUBMITTER: Kraus RD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9313572 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Artificial intelligence (AI) is a branch of computer science concerned with building smart software or machines capable of performing tasks that typically require human intelligence. We present a protocol for the use of AI to fabricate implant-supported monolithic zirconia crowns (MZCs) cemented on customized hybrid abutments. METHODS:The study protocol consisted of: (1) intraoral scan of the implant position; (2) design of the individual abutment and temporary crown using computer-aided design (CAD) software; (3) milling of the zirconia abutment and the temporary polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA) crown, with extraoral cementation of the zirconia abutment on the relative titanium bonding base, to generate an individual hybrid abutment; (4) clinical application of the hybrid abutment and the temporary PMMA crown; (5) intraoral scan of the hybrid abutment; (6) CAD of the final crown with automated margin line design using AI; (7) milling, sintering and characterisation of the final MZC; and (8) clinical application of the MZC. The outcome variables were mathematical (quality of the fabrication of the individual zirconia abutment) and clinical, such as (1) quality of the marginal adaptation, (2) of interproximal contact points and (3) of occlusal contacts, (4) chromatic integration, (5) survival and (6) success of MZCs. A careful statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS:90 patients (35 males, 55 females; mean age 53.3?±?13.7?years) restored with 106 implant-supported MZCs were included in the study. The follow-up varied from 6 months to 3 years. The quality of the fabrication of individual hybrid abutments revealed a mean deviation of 44??m (± 6.3) between the original CAD design of the zirconia abutment, and the mesh of the zirconia abutment captured intraorally at the end of the provisionalization. At the delivery of the MZCs, the marginal adaptation, quality of interproximal and occlusal contacts, and aesthetic integration were excellent. The three-year cumulative survival and success of the MZCs were 99.0% and 91.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:AI seems to represent a reliable tool for the restoration of single implants with MZCs cemented on customised hybrid abutments via a full digital workflow. Further studies are needed to confirm these positive results.

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:The reduced hardware design of narrow implants increases the risk of fracture not only of the implant itself but also of the prosthetic constituents. Hence, the current study is aimed at estimating the probability of survival of anterior crowns supported by different narrow implant systems. Three different narrow implant systems of internal conical connections were evaluated (Ø3.5 × 10?mm): (i) Active (Nobel Biocare), (ii) Epikut (S.I.N. Implant System), and (iii) BLX (Straumann). Abutments were torqued to the implants, and standardized maxillary incisor crowns were cemented. The assemblies were subjected to step-stress accelerated life testing (SSALT) in water through load application of 30 degrees off-axis lingually at the incisal edge of the crowns using a flat tungsten carbide indenter until fracture or suspension. The use level probability Weibull curves and reliability for completion of a mission of 100,000 cycles at 80?N and 120?N were calculated and plotted. Weibull modulus and characteristic strength were also calculated and plotted. Fractured samples were analyzed in a stereomicroscope. The beta (?) values were 1.6 (0.9-3.1) and 1.4 (0.9-2.2) for BLX and Active implants, respectively, and 0.5 (0.3-0.8) for the Epikut implant, indicating that failures were mainly associated with fatigue damage accumulation in the formers, but more likely associated with material strength in the latter. All narrow implant systems showed high probability of survival (?95%, CI: 85-100%) at 80 and 120?N, without significant difference between them. Weibull modulus ranged from 6 to 14. The characteristic strength of Active, Epikut, and BLX was 271 (260-282)?N, 216 (205-228)?N, and 275 (264-285)?N, respectively. The failure mode predominantly involved abutment and/or abutment screw fracture, whereas no narrow implant was fractured. Therefore, all narrow implant systems exhibited a high probability of survival for anterior physiologic masticatory forces, and failures were restricted to abutment and abutment screw.