Background
Implants are generally very successful but occasionally there are some difficulties in handling clinical situations. Several treatment concepts are available and proven reliable, a clinician has to navigate through options. The idea behind current topic was to focus on some controversial issues – the fixation method and material of implant restoration. Both topics are well illuminated in literature but there is no agreement nor clear evidence on what is clinically more efficient and reliable.
Aim/Hypothesis
The purpose of this prospective randomised multicenter clinical study was to compare the clinical performance of screw-retained monolithic zirconia and cemented PFM implant crowns. The null hypothesis was that zirconium screwed supraconstructions are clinically superior regarding soft tissue condition and less time consuming to insert.
Material and Methods
22 patients with bilaterally edentulous premolar or molar sites with sufficient bone volume and similar adeqate occlusal conditions were treated. All implants were randomly restored with screw-retained monolithic zirconia (test group) or cemented PFM supraconstruction (study group). Clinical parameters such as insertion time, occlusal contact strength and subjective clinician’s evaluation were documented. Soft tissue health, crestal bone level changes, technical complications and patient’s and clinicians evaluation for function and esthetics were measured during the 1 year follow up.
Results
22 patients with 44 implants concluded the study. No implant was lost during the follow-up period, thus resulting in 100% implant survival. Mean insertion time for screw-retained crowns was 5.40 min and for cemented crowns 7.17 min (P=0,81). Weak occlusal contacts appeared more at screw-retained than cemented constructions (1 vs. 6). Clinicians evaluation of esthetics was equally positive for both types of crowns, while the fit was superior with cemented restorations. Soft tissue conditions followed the similar pattern for both types of constructions, being somewhat elevated at first controls and lowering during observational period. The control group showed higher Plaque Index level at the beginning of the study period (mean 0,5) and lower towards the end (mean 0,2). Test groups results remained unchanged during the study period (mean 0,2). Bleeding on Probing (BoP) results decreased in the test group (mean 0,3 to 0,1) and remained on the same level in the control group (mean 0,2). Crestal bone level changes measured on intraoral radiographs were comparable for both restorations (mean 0,8 +- 0,7). Statistical significance was obtained when comparing distal sites at 12 months (P=0,03), the test group showing slightly more bone loss. Technical problems were present in both groups, the control group had one more failures than test group. Patient’s satisfaction regarding function and esthetics was high with both types of crowns, after 1 year 77% reported chewing on both sides and 95% were accepting the restoration as a part of dentition.
Conclusions and clinical implications
Both screw-retained and cemented single implant crowns performed equal effectively in terms of biological and clinical aspects in hands of different operators.
Background
Implants are generally very successful but occasionally there are some difficulties in handling clinical situations. Several treatment concepts are available and proven reliable, a clinician has to navigate through options. The idea behind current topic was to focus on some controversial issues – the fixation method and material of implant restoration. Both topics are well illuminated in literature but there is no agreement nor clear evidence on what is clinically more efficient and reliable.
Aim/Hypothesis
The purpose of this prospective randomised multicenter clinical study was to compare the clinical performance of screw-retained monolithic zirconia and cemented PFM implant crowns. The null hypothesis was that zirconium screwed supraconstructions are clinically superior regarding soft tissue condition and less time consuming to insert.
Material and Methods
22 patients with bilaterally edentulous premolar or molar sites with sufficient bone volume and similar adeqate occlusal conditions were treated. All implants were randomly restored with screw-retained monolithic zirconia (test group) or cemented PFM supraconstruction (study group). Clinical parameters such as insertion time, occlusal contact strength and subjective clinician’s evaluation were documented. Soft tissue health, crestal bone level changes, technical complications and patient’s and clinicians evaluation for function and esthetics were measured during the 1 year follow up.
Results
22 patients with 44 implants concluded the study. No implant was lost during the follow-up period, thus resulting in 100% implant survival. Mean insertion time for screw-retained crowns was 5.40 min and for cemented crowns 7.17 min (P=0,81). Weak occlusal contacts appeared more at screw-retained than cemented constructions (1 vs. 6). Clinicians evaluation of esthetics was equally positive for both types of crowns, while the fit was superior with cemented restorations. Soft tissue conditions followed the similar pattern for both types of constructions, being somewhat elevated at first controls and lowering during observational period. The control group showed higher Plaque Index level at the beginning of the study period (mean 0,5) and lower towards the end (mean 0,2). Test groups results remained unchanged during the study period (mean 0,2). Bleeding on Probing (BoP) results decreased in the test group (mean 0,3 to 0,1) and remained on the same level in the control group (mean 0,2). Crestal bone level changes measured on intraoral radiographs were comparable for both restorations (mean 0,8 +- 0,7). Statistical significance was obtained when comparing distal sites at 12 months (P=0,03), the test group showing slightly more bone loss. Technical problems were present in both groups, the control group had one more failures than test group. Patient’s satisfaction regarding function and esthetics was high with both types of crowns, after 1 year 77% reported chewing on both sides and 95% were accepting the restoration as a part of dentition.
Conclusions and clinical implications
Both screw-retained and cemented single implant crowns performed equal effectively in terms of biological and clinical aspects in hands of different operators.
Background
Implants are generally very successful but occasionally there are some difficulties in handling clinical situations. Several treatment concepts are available and proven reliable, a clinician has to navigate through options. The idea behind current topic was to focus on some controversial issues – the fixation method and material of implant restoration. Both topics are well illuminated in literature but there is no agreement nor clear evidence on what is clinically more efficient and reliable.
Aim/Hypothesis
The purpose of this prospective randomised multicenter clinical study was to compare the clinical performance of screw-retained monolithic zirconia and cemented PFM implant crowns. The null hypothesis was that zirconium screwed supraconstructions are clinically superior regarding soft tissue condition and less time consuming to insert.
Material and Methods
22 patients with bilaterally edentulous premolar or molar sites with sufficient bone volume and similar adeqate occlusal conditions were treated. All implants were randomly restored with screw-retained monolithic zirconia (test group) or cemented PFM supraconstruction (study group). Clinical parameters such as insertion time, occlusal contact strength and subjective clinician’s evaluation were documented. Soft tissue health, crestal bone level changes, technical complications and patient’s and clinicians evaluation for function and esthetics were measured during the 1 year follow up.
Results
22 patients with 44 implants concluded the study. No implant was lost during the follow-up period, thus resulting in 100% implant survival. Mean insertion time for screw-retained crowns was 5.40 min and for cemented crowns 7.17 min (P=0,81). Weak occlusal contacts appeared more at screw-retained than cemented constructions (1 vs. 6). Clinicians evaluation of esthetics was equally positive for both types of crowns, while the fit was superior with cemented restorations. Soft tissue conditions followed the similar pattern for both types of constructions, being somewhat elevated at first controls and lowering during observational period. The control group showed higher Plaque Index level at the beginning of the study period (mean 0,5) and lower towards the end (mean 0,2). Test groups results remained unchanged during the study period (mean 0,2). Bleeding on Probing (BoP) results decreased in the test group (mean 0,3 to 0,1) and remained on the same level in the control group (mean 0,2). Crestal bone level changes measured on intraoral radiographs were comparable for both restorations (mean 0,8 +- 0,7). Statistical significance was obtained when comparing distal sites at 12 months (P=0,03), the test group showing slightly more bone loss. Technical problems were present in both groups, the control group had one more failures than test group. Patient’s satisfaction regarding function and esthetics was high with both types of crowns, after 1 year 77% reported chewing on both sides and 95% were accepting the restoration as a part of dentition.
Conclusions and clinical implications
Both screw-retained and cemented single implant crowns performed equal effectively in terms of biological and clinical aspects in hands of different operators.
Background
Implants are generally very successful but occasionally there are some difficulties in handling clinical situations. Several treatment concepts are available and proven reliable, a clinician has to navigate through options. The idea behind current topic was to focus on some controversial issues – the fixation method and material of implant restoration. Both topics are well illuminated in literature but there is no agreement nor clear evidence on what is clinically more efficient and reliable.
Aim/Hypothesis
The purpose of this prospective randomised multicenter clinical study was to compare the clinical performance of screw-retained monolithic zirconia and cemented PFM implant crowns. The null hypothesis was that zirconium screwed supraconstructions are clinically superior regarding soft tissue condition and less time consuming to insert.
Material and Methods
22 patients with bilaterally edentulous premolar or molar sites with sufficient bone volume and similar adeqate occlusal conditions were treated. All implants were randomly restored with screw-retained monolithic zirconia (test group) or cemented PFM supraconstruction (study group). Clinical parameters such as insertion time, occlusal contact strength and subjective clinician’s evaluation were documented. Soft tissue health, crestal bone level changes, technical complications and patient’s and clinicians evaluation for function and esthetics were measured during the 1 year follow up.
Results
22 patients with 44 implants concluded the study. No implant was lost during the follow-up period, thus resulting in 100% implant survival. Mean insertion time for screw-retained crowns was 5.40 min and for cemented crowns 7.17 min (P=0,81). Weak occlusal contacts appeared more at screw-retained than cemented constructions (1 vs. 6). Clinicians evaluation of esthetics was equally positive for both types of crowns, while the fit was superior with cemented restorations. Soft tissue conditions followed the similar pattern for both types of constructions, being somewhat elevated at first controls and lowering during observational period. The control group showed higher Plaque Index level at the beginning of the study period (mean 0,5) and lower towards the end (mean 0,2). Test groups results remained unchanged during the study period (mean 0,2). Bleeding on Probing (BoP) results decreased in the test group (mean 0,3 to 0,1) and remained on the same level in the control group (mean 0,2). Crestal bone level changes measured on intraoral radiographs were comparable for both restorations (mean 0,8 +- 0,7). Statistical significance was obtained when comparing distal sites at 12 months (P=0,03), the test group showing slightly more bone loss. Technical problems were present in both groups, the control group had one more failures than test group. Patient’s satisfaction regarding function and esthetics was high with both types of crowns, after 1 year 77% reported chewing on both sides and 95% were accepting the restoration as a part of dentition.
Conclusions and clinical implications
Both screw-retained and cemented single implant crowns performed equal effectively in terms of biological and clinical aspects in hands of different operators.