Cited 0 times in

Cemented versus screw-retained zirconia-based single-implant restorations: 5-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial

DC Field Value Language
dc.date.accessioned2023-06-02T00:43:53Z-
dc.date.available2023-06-02T00:43:53Z-
dc.date.issued2022-04-
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/194384-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: 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.-
dc.description.statementOfResponsibilityopen-
dc.languageEnglish-
dc.publisherJohn Wiley and Sons, Inc.-
dc.relation.isPartOfCLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH-
dc.rightsCC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR-
dc.subject.MESHCrowns-
dc.subject.MESHDental Abutments*-
dc.subject.MESHDental Implants, Single-Tooth*-
dc.subject.MESHDental Restoration Failure-
dc.subject.MESHHumans-
dc.subject.MESHZirconium-
dc.titleCemented versus screw-retained zirconia-based single-implant restorations: 5-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.collegeCollege of Dentistry (치과대학)-
dc.contributor.departmentDept. of Periodontics (치주과학교실)-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSofia T Lamperti-
dc.contributor.googleauthorKarin Wolleb-
dc.contributor.googleauthorChristoph H F Hämmerle-
dc.contributor.googleauthorRonald E Jung-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJürg Hüsler-
dc.contributor.googleauthorDaniel S Thoma-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/clr.13895-
dc.relation.journalcodeJ00600-
dc.identifier.eissn1600-0501-
dc.identifier.pmid35051314-
dc.subject.keywordcemented-
dc.subject.keywordcrowns-
dc.subject.keyworddental abutments-
dc.subject.keywordscrew-retained-
dc.subject.keywordsingle-tooth dental implants-
dc.citation.volume33-
dc.citation.number4-
dc.citation.startPage353-
dc.citation.endPage361-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationCLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, Vol.33(4) : 353-361, 2022-04-
Appears in Collections:
2. College of Dentistry (치과대학) > Dept. of Periodontics (치주과학교실) > 1. Journal Papers

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.