Cargando…

A 5‐year randomized controlled trial comparing zirconia‐based versus metal‐based implant‐supported single‐tooth restorations in the premolar region

OBJECTIVE: To compare 5‐year biological, technical, aesthetic, and patient‐reported outcomes of single‐tooth implant‐supported all‐ceramic versus metal‐ceramic restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with 63 premolar agenesis participated in the 5‐year follow‐up. The prosthetic treatmen...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hosseini, Mandana, Worsaae, Nils, Gotfredsen, Klaus
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/PMC9546362/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35633183
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13960
_version_ 1784805024378912768
author Hosseini, Mandana
Worsaae, Nils
Gotfredsen, Klaus
author_facet Hosseini, Mandana
Worsaae, Nils
Gotfredsen, Klaus
author_sort Hosseini, Mandana
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare 5‐year biological, technical, aesthetic, and patient‐reported outcomes of single‐tooth implant‐supported all‐ceramic versus metal‐ceramic restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with 63 premolar agenesis participated in the 5‐year follow‐up. The prosthetic treatment on single‐tooth implants was randomly assigned to all‐ceramic crowns on zirconia abutments (AC = 31) or metal‐ceramic crowns on metal abutments (MC = 32). All patients were recalled to clinical examinations at baseline, 1, 3, and 5 years after prosthetic treatments. Biological, technical, and aesthetic outcomes including complications were clinically and radiographically registered. The patient‐reported outcomes were recorded using OHIP‐49 questionnaire before treatment and at each follow‐up examination. RESULTS: At the 5‐year examination, the survival rate was 100% for implants and 100% for AC and 97% for MC crowns and abutments. The marginal bone loss after 5 years was minor and not significantly different (p = .056) between AC (mean: 0.3, SD: 1.1) and MC (mean: −0.1, SD: 0.4) restorations. The success rate of the implants based on marginal bone loss was 77.4% for AC‐ and 93.7% for MC restorations. The marginal adaptation was significantly better for MC than for AC restorations (p = .025). The aesthetic outcomes and patient‐reported outcomes between AC and MC restorations were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: The biological, aesthetic and patient‐reported outcomes for implant‐supported AC and MC restorations were successful and with no significant difference after 5‐years. The marginal adaptation of the MC crowns cemented on titanium abutments showed a significantly better fit than restorations based on zirconia crowns cemented on zirconia abutments.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9546362
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95463622022-10-14 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 Clin Oral Implants Res Original Articles OBJECTIVE: To compare 5‐year biological, technical, aesthetic, and patient‐reported outcomes of single‐tooth implant‐supported all‐ceramic versus metal‐ceramic restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with 63 premolar agenesis participated in the 5‐year follow‐up. The prosthetic treatment on single‐tooth implants was randomly assigned to all‐ceramic crowns on zirconia abutments (AC = 31) or metal‐ceramic crowns on metal abutments (MC = 32). All patients were recalled to clinical examinations at baseline, 1, 3, and 5 years after prosthetic treatments. Biological, technical, and aesthetic outcomes including complications were clinically and radiographically registered. The patient‐reported outcomes were recorded using OHIP‐49 questionnaire before treatment and at each follow‐up examination. RESULTS: At the 5‐year examination, the survival rate was 100% for implants and 100% for AC and 97% for MC crowns and abutments. The marginal bone loss after 5 years was minor and not significantly different (p = .056) between AC (mean: 0.3, SD: 1.1) and MC (mean: −0.1, SD: 0.4) restorations. The success rate of the implants based on marginal bone loss was 77.4% for AC‐ and 93.7% for MC restorations. The marginal adaptation was significantly better for MC than for AC restorations (p = .025). The aesthetic outcomes and patient‐reported outcomes between AC and MC restorations were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: The biological, aesthetic and patient‐reported outcomes for implant‐supported AC and MC restorations were successful and with no significant difference after 5‐years. The marginal adaptation of the MC crowns cemented on titanium abutments showed a significantly better fit than restorations based on zirconia crowns cemented on zirconia abutments. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-06-11 2022-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9546362/ /pubmed/35633183 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13960 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
Hosseini, Mandana
Worsaae, Nils
Gotfredsen, Klaus
A 5‐year randomized controlled trial comparing zirconia‐based versus metal‐based implant‐supported single‐tooth restorations in the premolar region
title A 5‐year randomized controlled trial comparing zirconia‐based versus metal‐based implant‐supported single‐tooth restorations in the premolar region
title_full A 5‐year randomized controlled trial comparing zirconia‐based versus metal‐based implant‐supported single‐tooth restorations in the premolar region
title_fullStr A 5‐year randomized controlled trial comparing zirconia‐based versus metal‐based implant‐supported single‐tooth restorations in the premolar region
title_full_unstemmed A 5‐year randomized controlled trial comparing zirconia‐based versus metal‐based implant‐supported single‐tooth restorations in the premolar region
title_short A 5‐year randomized controlled trial comparing zirconia‐based versus metal‐based implant‐supported single‐tooth restorations in the premolar region
title_sort 5‐year randomized controlled trial comparing zirconia‐based versus metal‐based implant‐supported single‐tooth restorations in the premolar region
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9546362/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35633183
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13960
work_keys_str_mv AT hosseinimandana a5yearrandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingzirconiabasedversusmetalbasedimplantsupportedsingletoothrestorationsinthepremolarregion
AT worsaaenils a5yearrandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingzirconiabasedversusmetalbasedimplantsupportedsingletoothrestorationsinthepremolarregion
AT gotfredsenklaus a5yearrandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingzirconiabasedversusmetalbasedimplantsupportedsingletoothrestorationsinthepremolarregion
AT hosseinimandana 5yearrandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingzirconiabasedversusmetalbasedimplantsupportedsingletoothrestorationsinthepremolarregion
AT worsaaenils 5yearrandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingzirconiabasedversusmetalbasedimplantsupportedsingletoothrestorationsinthepremolarregion
AT gotfredsenklaus 5yearrandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingzirconiabasedversusmetalbasedimplantsupportedsingletoothrestorationsinthepremolarregion