Cargando…

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

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. Pati...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kraus, Riccardo D., Espuelas, Catharina, Hämmerle, Christoph H. F., Jung, Ronald E., Sailer, Irena, Thoma, Daniel S.
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/PMC9313572/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35224774
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13913
_version_ 1784754112472023040
author Kraus, Riccardo D.
Espuelas, Catharina
Hämmerle, Christoph H. F.
Jung, Ronald E.
Sailer, Irena
Thoma, Daniel S.
author_facet Kraus, Riccardo D.
Espuelas, Catharina
Hämmerle, Christoph H. F.
Jung, Ronald E.
Sailer, Irena
Thoma, Daniel S.
author_sort Kraus, Riccardo D.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9313572
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93135722022-07-30 Five‐year randomized controlled clinical study comparing cemented and screw‐retained zirconia‐based implant‐supported single crowns Kraus, Riccardo D. Espuelas, Catharina Hämmerle, Christoph H. F. Jung, Ronald E. Sailer, Irena Thoma, Daniel S. Clin Oral Implants Res Original Articles 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. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-03-03 2022-05 /pmc/articles/PMC9313572/ /pubmed/35224774 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13913 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Kraus, Riccardo D.
Espuelas, Catharina
Hämmerle, Christoph H. F.
Jung, Ronald E.
Sailer, Irena
Thoma, Daniel S.
Five‐year randomized controlled clinical study comparing cemented and screw‐retained zirconia‐based implant‐supported single crowns
title Five‐year randomized controlled clinical study comparing cemented and screw‐retained zirconia‐based implant‐supported single crowns
title_full Five‐year randomized controlled clinical study comparing cemented and screw‐retained zirconia‐based implant‐supported single crowns
title_fullStr Five‐year randomized controlled clinical study comparing cemented and screw‐retained zirconia‐based implant‐supported single crowns
title_full_unstemmed Five‐year randomized controlled clinical study comparing cemented and screw‐retained zirconia‐based implant‐supported single crowns
title_short Five‐year randomized controlled clinical study comparing cemented and screw‐retained zirconia‐based implant‐supported single crowns
title_sort five‐year randomized controlled clinical study comparing cemented and screw‐retained zirconia‐based implant‐supported single crowns
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9313572/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35224774
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13913
work_keys_str_mv AT krausriccardod fiveyearrandomizedcontrolledclinicalstudycomparingcementedandscrewretainedzirconiabasedimplantsupportedsinglecrowns
AT espuelascatharina fiveyearrandomizedcontrolledclinicalstudycomparingcementedandscrewretainedzirconiabasedimplantsupportedsinglecrowns
AT hammerlechristophhf fiveyearrandomizedcontrolledclinicalstudycomparingcementedandscrewretainedzirconiabasedimplantsupportedsinglecrowns
AT jungronalde fiveyearrandomizedcontrolledclinicalstudycomparingcementedandscrewretainedzirconiabasedimplantsupportedsinglecrowns
AT sailerirena fiveyearrandomizedcontrolledclinicalstudycomparingcementedandscrewretainedzirconiabasedimplantsupportedsinglecrowns
AT thomadaniels fiveyearrandomizedcontrolledclinicalstudycomparingcementedandscrewretainedzirconiabasedimplantsupportedsinglecrowns