Cargando…
Cemented versus screw‐retained zirconia‐based single‐implant restorations: 5‐year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial
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 di...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9305781/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35051314 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13895 |
_version_ | 1784752402890489856 |
---|---|
author | Lamperti, Sofia T. Wolleb, Karin Hämmerle, Christoph H.F. Jung, Ronald E. Hüsler, Jürg Thoma, Daniel S. |
author_facet | Lamperti, Sofia T. Wolleb, Karin Hämmerle, Christoph H.F. Jung, Ronald E. Hüsler, Jürg Thoma, Daniel S. |
author_sort | Lamperti, Sofia T. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9305781 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93057812022-07-28 Cemented versus screw‐retained zirconia‐based single‐implant restorations: 5‐year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial Lamperti, Sofia T. Wolleb, Karin Hämmerle, Christoph H.F. Jung, Ronald E. Hüsler, Jürg Thoma, Daniel S. Clin Oral Implants Res Original Articles 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. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-02-02 2022-04 /pmc/articles/PMC9305781/ /pubmed/35051314 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13895 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Lamperti, Sofia T. Wolleb, Karin Hämmerle, Christoph H.F. Jung, Ronald E. Hüsler, Jürg Thoma, Daniel S. Cemented versus screw‐retained zirconia‐based single‐implant restorations: 5‐year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial |
title | Cemented versus screw‐retained zirconia‐based single‐implant restorations: 5‐year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial |
title_full | Cemented versus screw‐retained zirconia‐based single‐implant restorations: 5‐year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial |
title_fullStr | Cemented versus screw‐retained zirconia‐based single‐implant restorations: 5‐year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Cemented versus screw‐retained zirconia‐based single‐implant restorations: 5‐year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial |
title_short | Cemented versus screw‐retained zirconia‐based single‐implant restorations: 5‐year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial |
title_sort | cemented versus screw‐retained zirconia‐based single‐implant restorations: 5‐year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9305781/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35051314 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13895 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lampertisofiat cementedversusscrewretainedzirconiabasedsingleimplantrestorations5yearresultsofarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT wollebkarin cementedversusscrewretainedzirconiabasedsingleimplantrestorations5yearresultsofarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT hammerlechristophhf cementedversusscrewretainedzirconiabasedsingleimplantrestorations5yearresultsofarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT jungronalde cementedversusscrewretainedzirconiabasedsingleimplantrestorations5yearresultsofarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT huslerjurg cementedversusscrewretainedzirconiabasedsingleimplantrestorations5yearresultsofarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT thomadaniels cementedversusscrewretainedzirconiabasedsingleimplantrestorations5yearresultsofarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial |