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

被引:10
|
作者
Lamperti, Sofia T. [1 ]
Wolleb, Karin
Haemmerle, Christoph H. F. [1 ]
Jung, Ronald E. [1 ]
Huesler, Juerg [1 ]
Thoma, Daniel S. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Zurich, Clin Reconstruct Dent, Zurich, Switzerland
[2] Yonsei Univ, Coll Dent, Res Inst Periodontal Regenerat, Dept Periodontol, Seoul, South Korea
关键词
cemented; crowns; dental abutments; screw-retained; single-tooth dental implants; ALL-CERAMIC CROWNS; 11-YEAR FOLLOW-UP; ABUTMENT MATERIAL; AESTHETIC COMPLICATIONS; SURVIVAL RATE; ONE-PIECE; PERFORMANCE; TITANIUM; CANINE; RECONSTRUCTIONS;
D O I
10.1111/clr.13895
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:353 / 361
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Cemented vs screw-retained zirconia-based single implant reconstructions: A 3-year prospective randomized controlled clinical trial
    Kraus, Riccardo D.
    Epprecht, Alyssa
    Hammerle, Christoph H. F.
    Sailer, Irena
    Thoma, Daniel S.
    CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2019, 21 (04) : 578 - 585
  • [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.
    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.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, 2019, 32 (02) : 174 - 176
  • [4] 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
    CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2021, 23 (05) : 692 - 702
  • [5] 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.
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2024, 35 (12) : 1669 - 1675
  • [6] Fracture resistance of implant-supported screw-retained zirconia-based molar restorations
    Honda, Junichi
    Komine, Futoshi
    Kamio, Shingo
    Taguchi, Kohei
    Blatz, Markus B.
    Matsumura, Hideo
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2017, 28 (09) : 1119 - 1126
  • [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
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2021, 32 (12) : 1484 - 1495
  • [8] A 5-year randomized controlled trial comparing zirconia-based versus metal-based implant-supported single-tooth restorations in the premolar region
    Hosseini, Mandana
    Worsaae, Nils
    Gotfredsen, Klaus
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2022, 33 (08) : 792 - 803
  • [9] 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
  • [10] Cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns: a 10-year randomised controlled trial
    Vigolo, Paolo
    Mutinelli, Sabrina
    Givani, Andrea
    Stellini, Edoardo
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY, 2012, 5 (04) : 355 - 364