Cemented versus screw-retained posterior implant-supported single crowns: A 24-month randomized controlled clinical trial

被引:20
|
作者
Wolfart, Stefan [1 ]
Rittich, Anne [1 ]
Gross, Karin [1 ]
Hartkamp, Oliver [1 ]
von der Stueck, Annabelle [1 ]
Raith, Stefan [1 ,2 ]
Reich, Sven [1 ]
机构
[1] RWTH Univ Hosp, Dept Prosthodont & Biomat, Pauwelsstr 30, D-52074 Aachen, Germany
[2] Clin Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Aachen, Germany
关键词
bone implant interactions; clinical research; clinical trials; material sciences; prosthodontics; soft tissue-implant interactions; CONSENSUS REPORT; RESTORATIONS; DISEASES; RECONSTRUCTIONS; ABUTMENTS; WORKSHOP;
D O I
10.1111/clr.13849
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objectives To compare the incidence of biological and technical complications of cemented and screw-retained monolithic lithium-disilicate implant-supported posterior single crowns. Material and Methods Forty-one subjects with a total of 56 implants received randomly allocated 28 cemented and 28 screw-retained crowns. In the screw-retained group, monolithic lithium-disilicate restorations were luted to titanium bases extraorally. In the cemented group, monolithic lithium-disilicate crowns were cemented on individualized titanium abutments intraorally. All restorations were examined according to modified FDI criteria within 2 weeks of inserting the crowns (baseline) and after 12 (n = 46) and 24 (n = 43) months. Bone loss was evaluated by standardized radiographs at baseline and 12 months. Results After 12 months, the incidence of mucositis (positive bleeding on probing) was 14.2% (screw-retained) and 17.9% (cement-retained). The gingival and plaque index and a mean marginal bone loss between 0.03-0.15 mm showed no significant difference between the groups. In the cemented group, cement residues were detected at baseline at two restorations (6.9%) by radiographic examination. A complete digital workflow was realized in most cases (85.7%). At 24 months, no restoration had failed, and no chipping of the ceramic had occurred. In the screw-retained group, screw loosening occurred in one implant. In both groups, there was obvious deterioration in the quality of 32% of the occlusal and of 18% of the proximal contact points. Conclusions The type of retention mode of monolithic implant-retained lithium-disilicate posterior crowns had no influence on the biological and technical complication rate.
引用
收藏
页码:1484 / 1495
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] A comparison of the porcelain fracture resistance of screw-retained and cement-retained implant-supported metal-ceramic crowns
    Torrado, E
    Ercoli, C
    Al Mardini, M
    Graser, GN
    Tallents, RH
    Cordaro, L
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2004, 91 (06): : 532 - 537
  • [22] Evaluation of the masking ability, marginal adaptation, and fracture resistance of screw-retained lithium disilicate implant-supported crowns cemented to titanium bases versus preparable abutments
    Ahmad Waled Mohamad Kordi
    Abdallah Ibrahim Salman
    Nayrouz Adel Metwally
    Mohamed Moataz Khamis
    BMC Oral Health, 23
  • [23] 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
    Dini, Caroline
    Borges, Guilherme Almeida
    Costa, Raphael Cavalcante
    Magno, Marcela Barauna
    Maia, Lucianne Cople
    Ricardo Barao, Valentim Adelino
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2021, 32 (10) : 1143 - 1158
  • [24] Factors Affecting the Decision to Use Cemented or Screw-Retained Fixed Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Critical Review
    Gomez-Polo, Miguel
    Ortega, Rocio
    Gomez-Polo, Cristina
    Celemin, Alicia
    Highsmith, Jaime Del Rio
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, 2018, 31 (01) : 43 - 54
  • [25] Aging and Fracture Resistance of Screw-Retained Implant-Supported Molar Crowns Fabricated from Lithium Disilicate Containing Virgilite
    Rauch, Angelika
    Schmid, Alois
    Schmidt, Michael Benno
    Schmutzler, Anne
    Hahnel, Sebastian
    Rosentritt, Martin
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, 2024, 37 (04) : 453 - 456
  • [26] Strain Development of Screw-Retained Implant-Supported Fixed Restorations: Procera Implant Bridge Versus Conventionally Cast Restorations
    Karl, Matthias
    Holst, Stefan
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, 2012, 25 (02) : 166 - 169
  • [27] Single Dental Implant Restoration: Cemented or Screw-Retained? A Systematic Review of Multi-Factor Randomized Clinical Trials
    Fiorillo, Luca
    D'Amico, Cesare
    Ronsivalle, Vincenzo
    Cicciu, Marco
    Cervino, Gabriele
    PROSTHESIS, 2024, 6 (04): : 871 - 886
  • [28] CEMENTED AND SCREW-RETAINED IMPLANT-SUPPORTED RESTORATIONS MAY HAVE A COMPARABLE RISK FOR PERI-IMPLANT MUCOSITIS AND PERI-IMPLANTITIS
    Majid, Omer Waleed
    JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE-BASED DENTAL PRACTICE, 2024, 24 (01)
  • [29] Effect of Abutment Screw Design and Crown/Implant Ratio on Preload Maintenance of Single-Crown Screw-Retained Implant-Supported Prostheses
    Rodrigues, Isabela
    Zanardi, Piero
    Sesma, Newton
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 2019, 34 (06) : 1397 - 1403
  • [30] FEM evaluation of cemented-retained versus screw-retained dental implant single-tooth crown prosthesis
    Cicciu, Marco
    Bramanti, Ennio
    Matacena, Giada
    Guglielmino, Eugenio
    Risitano, Giacomo
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 2014, 7 (04): : 817 - 825