8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references47

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found
          Is Open Access

          CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

          The CONSORT statement is used worldwide to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials. Kenneth Schulz and colleagues describe the latest version, CONSORT 2010, which updates the reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulating experience
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Peri-implant diseases and conditions: Consensus report of workgroup 4 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The microbiota associated with successful or failing osseointegrated titanium implants.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                manho@sund.ku.dk
                Journal
                Clin Oral Implants Res
                Clin Oral Implants Res
                10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501
                CLR
                Clinical Oral Implants Research
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0905-7161
                1600-0501
                11 June 2022
                August 2022
                : 33
                : 8 ( doiID: 10.1111/clr.v33.8 )
                : 792-803
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Section of Oral Rehabilitation Department of Odontology Faculty of Health Science University of Copenhagen Copenhagen Denmark
                [ 2 ] Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery University Hospital Rigshospitalet Copenhagen Denmark
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Mandana Hosseini, Nørre Allé 20, Copenhagen N‐2200, Denmark.

                Email: manho@ 123456sund.ku.dk

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8768-274X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1444-9362
                Article
                CLR13960 COIR-Sep-21-OR-9111.R1
                10.1111/clr.13960
                9546362
                35633183
                e1b3a63b-1632-40bc-b71e-64cd95889f7c
                © 2022 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://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.

                History
                : 09 May 2022
                : 24 February 2022
                : 10 May 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 6, Tables: 4, Pages: 12, Words: 7504
                Funding
                Funded by: DENTSPLY Implants , doi 10.13039/501100009891;
                Funded by: Danish Dental Association , doi 10.13039/100008364;
                Categories
                Original Article
                Original Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                August 2022
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.2.0 mode:remove_FC converted:07.10.2022

                aesthetic outcome,biological outcome,cement‐retained,implant prosthetic treatment,implant‐supported single‐tooth restorations,patient‐reported outcome,technical outcome,titanium abutment,zirconia abutment

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content364

                Cited by5

                Most referenced authors662